A ban on Cut & Paste Odesseys?

[Idaho]

Can we institute some kind of forum rule on tedious c&p threads. There does seem to be a few prime culprits. And the content is always along the same monotonous track.

Certain posters seem to think that it is intellectually robust to c&p whatever dirge they happen to swallow and present it as evidence to the rest of us. Even worse is the multi c&p - one borderline reasonable source combined with several wacked out ones.

Perhaps a simple rule. Post up the link to your drivel with at most a paragraph synopsis. Even better - make the point yourself (if you have the wit). It's a drag having to wade through endless threads which in effect are just reading one paragraph of some ongoing boreathon before scrolling past acres of text in the vain hope of original commentary beneath it.

I think the urge to paste all of it up is part of a realisation that no rational member here would, quite reasonably, ever visit such sites and that they feel the need to 'spread the word'.

I come on this board for some debate, some original ideas - hell even some unorginal ones - but at least make them your own. I have no interest in reading a bunch of opinion articles cut from sources I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. Sources who's legitimacy seems to come from the fact that no-one else would either.

[R'as al Ghul]

Absolutely true.

I would like to add that the old "I link - you link" game is also pretty tiresome.
I mean the habit that posters are asked to provide links to backup their opinions and
when they do so that the sources always get debunked for being biased.
This most often ends in link battles where links are posted that say the exact opposite of the link before. :zzz:

[rasoforos]

I have been copy pasting articles but I mostly provide only a link.

As long as the article is small enough and not dogmatic or patronising then I think its ok, I can never be bothered to read 5 pages of text though and when ppl start disecting and quoting it it gets too tedious.

I hope the oddly enough articles I occasionaly post do not cause too much trouble. :embarassed:

[monkian]

You wouldnt happen to be talking about a certain poster would you ?

*cough* Gawain *cough*

~D

[Papewaio]

What you would prefer unproven dribble rather then referenced dribble that is upfront and has the ability to be disected?

I thought that a good mix is what stops it just being a set of nominative statements.

[Idaho]

The problem is not really about referenced articles, or indeed conversation pieces. The problem is certain users simply posting opinion pieces that agree with their opinion as opposed to being able to articulate the point themselves.

[Shahed]

The problem is "spreading the word". Most times I noted people are simply trying to convert others and say "Hey look see I'm right." It's a bunch of nonsense, you may as well be in some brainwashing concentration camp.

It's a different and acceptable story, when the poster is simply trying to encourage civillised debate on a topic by referencing an article. Most times this is not the case, the poster/s is/are trying to force their own idea of a cohesive collective vision among the patrons. Attempting to persuade them to adhere to their own vision in a perverted and pathetic attempt to gain some vision of self legitimacy.

This is most definetely a major problem.
Is this a conversion camp or a debating hall ?

I support the ban.

:bow:

[Productivity]

I support the ban.

If it's news, link to the article, and then state your view. A nice little example of this is given here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=51441) by Don Corleone.

If it's just a opinion piece that you happen to agree with, well state it yourself. By all means use their references, but simply posting it, leaving one or two lines of fluff and then letting the article take the criticism instead of yourself appears somewhat intelectually cowardly to me.

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL, the same people calling for this ban would be the same asking, "link please" if the person just wrote what they had heard or read. This thread should be in the Watchroom so Tosa can get a good belly laugh.


**sips on some fine liberal whine**

~:cheers:

[Proletariat]

Copying the whole thing is a copyright violation anyway. Just C&P the most pertinent few lines or paragraphs and post a link so the actual website gets it's due.

[Productivity]

Heh, I'm not actually thinking of anyone in particular. I can remember a few topics, but not the starters - they have come from both the left and the right - and I'm just as rightwing on economics as you Dev. Dave ~;).

I don't know, I just would prefer if someone says something, as they feel in their own words, rather than just posting something which is close to their feelings.

[monkian]

LOL, the same people calling for this ban would be the same asking, "link please" if the person just wrote what they had heard or read. This thread should be in the Watchroom so Tosa can get a good belly laugh.


**sips on some fine liberal whine**

~:cheers:


Um... it was stated that links are fine when qouting a source - but copy and pasting somebodt elses rant followed by 'discuss' is getting rather tedious

[Don Corleone]

~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:

Boo hoo hoo! Gawain put a gun to my head and made me read an article in a thread that agrees with his position and not mine. What's more, it's not fair, because the guy in the article sounds like he knows what he's talking about. At the very least, we should have a rule that these guys have to write articles for the Independent every now and then, so Jag can can post them. Boo hoo hoo.... wait a second... nobody's putting a gun to my head. I can just not read threads I don't like and let them move into obscurity :idea2:

[Al Khalifah]

To an extent I agree. For every good well thought out thread, there is another where someone has just seen a news article they agree with and pasted it without any gisting followed by one line of "Yeah - too right!" or "At last the left/right have been exposed!"

It's one thing to use sources of evidence to back up your opinions, but it's another thing altogether to just wholesale c&p someone else's and then expect debate to follow. These topics never stay on topic for long, because very few people can actually be bothered to wade through the entire piece before replying and they usually break down into petty disputes about fragments of the whole.

[Franconicus]

Boo hoo hoo! Gawain put a gun to my head and made me read an article in a thread that agrees with his position and not mine. What's more, it's not fair, because the guy in the article sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
Do you really mean that Gawain we all know. And the author sounded like he knows what he's talking about?
Even though I realise the very fine sarcasm in your words :bow: I do not remember any thread of Gawain ...

[Ser Clegane]

This thread should be in the Watchroom

Agree - especially, as we now have a dedicated Backroom sub-section in the Watchtower

On topic:
I agree to a certain extent with the original idea of this post. I also find it quite tedious to wade through entire articles (sometimes rather long) with the thread starter only adding a one-liner to it - often along the lines of "told you so" or "what do you think", without adding an own view on the issue discussed in the article.

Best practice would be to post the link to the full article, quote some essentials you considered to be most important, and add your own view (or perhaps the resaon why you actually psoted tha article).


Boo hoo hoo.... wait a second... nobody's putting a gun to my head. I can just not read threads I don't like and let them move into obscurity
The problem is that you have to read the whole article to decide whether it might be an intersting topic or not.
Therefore a short summary or only quoting the most important points would be really nice (especially for a moderator who actually is supposed to read all the stuff that is posted :help: )

[Idaho]

Boo hoo hoo! Gawain put a gun to my head and made me read an article in a thread that agrees with his position and not mine...blah blah blah

The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

Citing articles is fine. Giving examples of authors is fine. However merely slapping yet another article up and cluttering up the forum with... let's count... 5 threads on the first page which are merely an opinion piece cut from other sources - does little to improve the variety of debate.

Perhaps what I should do is to report the copyright infringement each time a C&P appears... ~;)

[Ja'chyra]

To be honest if it's too long I just don't read it, after all I am at work and have got stuff to do you know :whip: ~;)

[scooter_the_shooter]

The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

Citing articles is fine. Giving examples of authors is fine. However merely slapping yet another article up and cluttering up the forum with... let's count... 5 threads on the first page which are merely an opinion piece cut from other sources - does little to improve the variety of debate.

Perhaps what I should do is to report the copyright infringement each time a C&P appears... ~;)



Does it count for a violation if you post the link and have it in quotes??

[Productivity]

Does it count for a violation if you post the link and have it in quotes??

I'm no lawyer, but at the bottom of every Fox News page (for example, there is something similar everywhere else), there is;


Copyright © 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

Which would indicate that yes, it is still a violation.

Incidentally this post is a violation, as the above is covered by itself I would think.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's one thing to use sources of evidence to back up your opinions, but it's another thing altogether to just wholesale c&p someone else's and then expect debate to follow. These topics never stay on topic for long, because very few people can actually be bothered to wade through the entire piece before replying and they usually break down into petty disputes about fragments of the whole.

So you dont like my posting style then dont read my posts.

Well if you look at my threads they are the longest lasting ones here by far. The reason I print the whole thing is exactly why you say I shouldnt. If you dont they either dont read the link or they only read part of it. When I first got here I didnt know how to cut and paste or make links and evryone always jumped on me to prove what I was saying. Now I just beat them to the punch. I also post articles I dissagree with. Face it many of you are either lazy or dont like to read articles that you dont agree with.

[PanzerJaeger]

I have no interest in reading a bunch of opinion articles cut from sources I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

Then dont read it genius. :idea:

This thread is nothing more than an attack on Gawain, which is evidenced by this:


The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

How about lets not start banning things and use our own common sense to decide what we want to read and what we dont. Its easy enough to tell from the layout of a post if it follows that format.

Do you realize how many amazing debates have been spurred by Gawain's postings? Do you realize that almost every long thread where people really hammer out policy and such start from a copy/paste thread?

This is all too typical. You dont like what Gawain does so you want to ban it. I frankly dont like your posts, can we ban them?

[Don Corleone]

What's more, I can think of two people that Idaho tends to agree with, that engage in the exact same practice, and I find it notable that we're focusing on Gawain.

I think Gawain's posts start a LOT of discussion on a topic. Heck, I find myself in disagreement with them a lot of time, and there's times when I'm in a rush and once I see a C&P post, I just hit back on my browser.

The copyright issue is another matter, so I'll wait to hear what Tosa-sama has to say on that matter. But I do think it's unfair to single out some people who do it and not all.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

Its pretty amazing that for a man without a postiton I came in third in the best debator at the org and aways score high in such polls. This is indeed a personal attack and an unfounded one. Jeez others here accuse e of being the farthest person to the right on the org. Not bad for someone without a position.

[Idaho]

Coca Cola is a very indentifiable and unbiquitous brand - that doesn't make the product worthwhile.

Panzer - go ahead and suggest banning some particular type of thread that I always post... er.. whatever that is.

I have no problem with Gawain posting threads - I have a problem with the debateless single sentence underneath a C&P odessey. I would prefer you to actually engage in the debate you have congratulated yourself for being so good at. Most of the time you use someone elses opinion as a way of not presenting for yourself. You are not the only culprit. JAG seems to be doing this increasingly, and I also dislike those threads - but at least the pointless original sentence is "this is interesting" rather than "this prooves that all libarals (sic) are wrong" or some such drivel.

[Beirut]

The point is that he doesn't have a position.


Excuse me?

Gawain... unpositioned?

And you returned from space when exactly?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I read a few other forum, mainly paradox forum.

It's quite funny that when I read something there from let's say a US conservative, I usually find it here again copy paste, same source, a few days later.
And I got to say it's really, mainly US conservative doing this. Whether it's Pindar or Gawain or whoever, in all cases I got the same exact stuff.
Can't you guys be like... creative?
I got to agree that Don is pretty much the only one that do it right... And at least he writes a bit itself in a funny way.

At paradox, they post it before here, so here, it's already my second copy/ paste... And they also got lot of post that are not copy paste + they call on that practice.

I am fully aware of what many of you might think; "hey, if Paradox is better and we're not good enough, go there and don't let the door...."

Dont acte,

:bow:

Louis,

[LeftEyeNine]

Actually, some discussion and implementation of an idea needs proof. So articles are valid.

However, many threads out there are starting with legendary articles by some journalists that I can only read if I am dedicated to be a know-it-all super-high-intelellectual using-%6-of-my-brain guy..

I think it's better to read the article yourself, commentate on it yourself and blend it with your claims with the topic starter post. You can always forward the link if anyone demands a proof, can't you ?

[Simetrical]

Copying the whole thing is a copyright violation anyway. Just C&P the most pertinent few lines or paragraphs and post a link so the actual website gets it's due.This is precisely the rule I've gotten implemented over at TWC. No large quotes, just quote a piece and then link.

Does it count for a violation if you post the link and have it in quotes??Yes. Otherwise, by that logic, I could photocopy the New York Times every morning and reproduce it, clearly attributed, and sell it for half the price, or even put it up on the Web for free. That's exactly what copyright law is meant to prevent, infringement on commercially-viable intellectual property. There are some "moral rights" as well, but not very major ones.

Which would indicate that yes, it is still a violation.Tip: don't trust the word of a corporation that makes its profit off being able to have exclusive rights to its intellectual property on whether it has exclusive rights to its intellectual property. By and large, though, yes, FOX does have the right to prevent you from doing that (even if it doesn't state you can't, incidentally—I could sue you for printing out this post and selling it on the street if I wanted, even though I haven't explicitly said you can't).

Incidentally this post is a violation, as the above is covered by itself I would think.Technically they might be able to sue you or the Guild for an injunction to stop distributing that quote, yes, plus maybe legal fees and possibly even punitive damages, but they won't, and you might well be able to put up a fair use argument (certain limited uses of copyrighted work are in fact allowed). Copyright protection is a civil matter, not criminal; it's not exactly illegal for you to reproduce that statement, it just leaves you open to lawsuit.

-Simetrical

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When the thread just has a cut and past article (posted by whoever) and nothing said by the poster it usually isn't an interesting subject anyway. I can't see banning it as a good idea.

[Big_John]

being able to actually articulate a position rather than simply regurgitating some internet editorial is a virtue for which we should all strive. but it shouldn't be necessary to make a post.

tbh, i usually just ignore that boring drivel.

it would be rather funny, though, to see someone run off a string of responses in a debat-ish backroom thread that consisted entirely of quoted text from some website.

[King of Atlantis]

Though i dont like the article post, i see nothing wrong with them. I usually just wait until the discussion becomes clear and then post according to the discussion.

[Papewaio]

As the initial article to launch a discussion it can be useful.

Maybe we should trial a week or backroom formats based on posters like Don Corleone-san. See if we can raise the bar in the debate.

Cut'n'paste based on the 80/20 rule where only 20 percent of something contains 80% of the goods. So have the main points... or even convert the article into its top 3 points and post the link.

If the style change doesn't work then we can always go back or try another form.

[Byzantine Prince]

@Tosa

Is it illigal if we site the source of the C&Ped article on the quote=[blank] part? Or should we stop C&Ping all together. I'm a little confused as to what is acceptable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ive never seen such a bunch of cry babies in my life. You dont like it dont read it nervermind respond to it.


Though i dont like the article post, i see nothing wrong with them. I usually just wait until the discussion becomes clear and then post according to the discussion.

This is what I do . Yes I sometimes add a little snip at the end but I want to see what others think before I spill my guts.


When the thread just has a cut and past article (posted by whoever) and nothing said by the poster it usually isn't an interesting subject anyway. I can't see banning it as a good idea.

You cant say that about my threads. I look for stories or articles I think will cause a good debate and post them. Again if you dont like just ignore it.


I have no problem with Gawain posting threads - I have a problem with the debateless single sentence underneath a C&P odessey. I would prefer you to actually engage in the debate you have congratulated yourself for being so good at. Most of the time you use someone elses opinion as a way of not presenting for yourself. You are not the only culprit. JAG seems to be doing this increasingly, and I also dislike those threads - but at least the pointless original sentence is "this is interesting" rather than "this prooves that all libarals (sic) are wrong" or some such drivel.

This is total bullocks. Yes Jag and I do have a habit of starting debates this way but I think there are few hear who make their own positions more clearly than either of us. You all know where we stand. I dont continue to cut and past after the opening unless Im trying to show where I got something. Damn you guys have me sticking up for Jag now . Whats the org coming to.


As the initial article to launch a discussion it can be useful.

Maybe we should trial a week or backroom formats based on posters like Don Corleone-san. See if we can raise the bar in the debate.

Human cloning is against the law ~D Do we want only one style of posting here. Your advocating boredom.

[Don Corleone]

Hey, who's boring? :furious3:

Actually, as I can be something of a hothead, I can guarantee nobody wants to use me as the rolemodel for how to post in the backroom.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey, who's boring?

Certainly not you . Bt 200 of you might Be. It reminds me of an episode of All in the family I just watched. Arhie thinks another black family is moving in necxt door amd Michael says to him that diversty is goo in the neighborhood. Arhie says one black family is a novelty but two black familes are a ghetto. I always though about using his name and posting like he would. Man that would be a scream .

[Goofball]

Can we institute some kind of forum rule on tedious c&p threads. There does seem to be a few prime culprits. And the content is always along the same monotonous track.

I have to tell you Idaho, though I quite often agree with you I think you are way off base with this idea.

If you don't like cut and pastes, don't read them and don't reply to them. Just like in the real world, it's your responsibility to sift through what you see in the Backroom, then decide what to keep and what to discard.

[Idaho]

Goofball, Gawain - the 'if you don't like it then ignore it' arguement doesn't wash here. It's like me complaining about litter, or anti-social behaviour and being told to simply look the other way.

We all have a responsibility to maintain the level of debate on this forum, to promote a good standard all round. Yeah Gawain's views p*ss me off - but I will just have to deal with that - however cluttering up the board with endless C&Ps means that this forum is turning into a reactionary essay list. If I wanted to see a page filled with such dirge I would hold my nose and go and find www.lickmystarsandstripesgunbutt.com

Link to such sites to provide a source - fine

Post the occassional article from such site - if pertinent and interesting - fine

Refer to such sites - fine

However don't fill the board with endless C&Ps - it's not a big point. If you really have something to say about something then say it yourself. Don't bore me articles I don't want to read by people who I can't debate with.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Link to such sites to provide a source - fine

I hate when people do that. I t makes it harder to refference and reply. In many cases I do what others say about cut and paste and just dont bother even reading it and wait for people to start replying. In the opening of the thread I would much rather see the entire article. Different strokes for different folks.


We all have a responsibility to maintain the level of debate on this forum,

And now you are the one to decide these standards?


Goofball, Gawain - the 'if you don't like it then ignore it' arguement doesn't wash here. It's like me complaining about litter, or anti-social behaviour and being told to simply look the other way.

One mans litter is another mans gold.


however cluttering up the board with endless C&Ps means that this forum is turning into a reactionary essay list. If I wanted to see a page filled with such dirge I would hold my nose and go and find www.lickmystarsandstripesgunbutt.com

I dont clutter up the board with endless cut and pastes. Mostly I ony use them to open a thread. Lets talk reaility here.


Don't bore me articles I don't want to read by people who I can't debate with.

You see in the end its all about Idaho

[Redleg]

You see in the end its all about Idaho

Sure it is - didn't you notice it in his very first post.


...... I have no interest in reading a bunch of opinion articles cut from sources I wouldn't touch with a bargepole........

Cut and paste is just fine as long as it does not violate any copyright laws.

I would like to see more detailed thoughts of individuals after the initial article. And like someone mentioned some articles come from sites where other's subscribe to - and other do not. So the only way to have others see the article is to actually cut and paste it.

The only valid concern about cut and paste - is are we in our ignorance violating any copy right laws that will get the .Org in trouble with whatever regulatory outfit decides to eventual police the internet for such violations.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'll just copy this from another post of mine since it belongs here:

About those 'cut and paste odyssey's': if you are trying to make a point, then make it and just add a link. If you've got an interesting article to share that you want to discuss, by all means share it.

My two cents.

[Navaros]

i 100% concur with original poster

copy and pasting has been going on forever, and it needs to stop

the solutions are:

1. ban copy and pasting articles outright

or

2. make sure the original poster matches the amount of characters he has pasted, letter for letter, via the addition of his own words on the same subject. if his own words have less characters than the characters in the article, then the thread gets locked instantly.

making it so it is just allowed for copying and pasting links is not an adequate solution. that does not address the core issue of this problem: that patrons are not discussing each other's own ideas

[Big_John]

that does not address the core issue of this problem: that patrons are not discussing each other's own ideasof course, if that were a strict criterion, there would be a new thread in the backroom about once every 5 months or so...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

that does not address the core issue of this problem: that patrons are not discussing each other's own ideas

Yeah I dont Have any of my own. Did you ever think that the article may represent the views poster or that he may like to hear what others think of it?


2. make sure the original poster matches the amount of characters he has pasted, letter for letter, via the addition of his own words on the same subject. if his own words have less characters than the characters in the article, then the thread gets locked instantly.

So you want to make it twice as tedious to read and have them repeat what the original article said in different words. That ludicrous. I would also like to point out that in most cases I post for more words of my own than I do from cutting and pasting. In fact its probably about 100 to 1 ratio.

[King of Atlantis]

guys honestly, Gwain uses the most copy and pasting and he offeres the MOST views. Anybody saying gawain(and other cronic pasters ~:) ) dont post opinions are dead wrong.

[Simetrical]

@Tosa

Is it illigal if we site the source of the C&Ped article on the quote=[blank] part? Or should we stop C&Ping all together. I'm a little confused as to what is acceptable.Illegal, yes. You're still infringing on the copyright holder's exclusive commercial right to reproduce and distribute his work, or to authorize such reproduction and distribution. I can provide legal sources for that if you'd like. Whether it's acceptable here, that I can't say.

-Simetrical

[Divinus Arma]

Please. leave it the way it is.

I think this is a terrific way to stimulate debate and discuss the issues of the day.

Quote the article, as is done now and cut & paste. This gives credit to the author where due, and allows us all to be on the same page.

Leave as is with no changes. Just ensure that the link is posted as well.


Regards

[GodsPetMonkey]

I read a few other forum, mainly paradox forum.

It's quite funny that when I read something there from let's say a US conservative, I usually find it here again copy paste, same source, a few days later.


It has become an epidemic really, I can't think of any OT forum I have been to recently that has not got this type of thread all over the place... in fact, extensive research has led me to discover a new species of netizen: the Luremaster (aka. Copy & Paste Troll).
It's quite a simple, and rather effective, strategy really. I'll provide an example using a conservative poster (as the are far more prevalent, and possibly pioneered the tactic), though it's easily applied to liberal and other luremasters, just change the sources as appropriate.
Also note that I italicise the titles of the luremasters to keep them distinctive from conservative and liberal posters who are not baiting.

First of all, our conservative poster finds a suitable source of editorials to fuel their passion for internet arson; townhall.com (http://www.townhall.com/) is incredibly popular, just about every article I see used in this manner can be found on here. The conservative then picks a group that he/she wants to inflame (liberals, communists, anarchists, socialists, pro-abortion, pro-immigration, anti-gun, anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-capitalism, pro-gay-marriage, supporters of particular famous politicians/political parties, you get the idea) and look for a suitably inflammatory editorial. The trick is to find one with as little truth as possible, nothing fuels the fire like lies, rumours and half-truths.
Then start a new thread with a title that will attract your target audience, but not inflammatory enough to turn any one off, paste the article, then add a one liner which is a perfect catalyst for the mayhem ahead (a popular choice is "I knew [target group] are a bunch of [insert derogatory term here]", which can be easily adapted, but remains effective in delivering the final insult).

The flame war then begins, for the first 10 or so replies, the article provides enough fuel that no extra needs to be added, but the targets will start to loss interest after a short while, so the conservative may give it a little kick, either by backing it up with a similar themed editorial, or poking a few of the more sensitive posters in the thread... then the real fun starts, and the thread soon explodes. The other conservatives soon try to rush to their embattled friend's defence, and before you know it, the thread explodes out to 5, 10 even 15 pages of constant flame, the conservative is strangely absent for much of this (only giving the thread a quick kick when it slows down), as the other conservatives have taken the extreme position (which they would have been unlikely to take otherwise) in order to help defend their comrade in politics.

And there you have it, the luremaster at work... other forum patrons soon see how effective they are, and slowly they become luremasters as well (the name has a double meaning!).

Hmmm, I should probably submit that to flamewarriors...

[TosaInu]

Yes GodsPetMonkey: some guys like to get a rise out of other people. And they do it while hiding in the shadows, covered by an alter ego account, or by just being dishonest about their own play.

The sad thing is that those arsonist are not only rewarded by flames, but also enjoy sympathy and their saint alter egos also get respect. Unlike real man/woman who do good and bad things and receive feedback, these trolls get away with everything.

[Demon of Light]

Yes GodsPetMonkey: some guys like to get a rise out of other people. And they do it while hiding in the shadows, covered by an alter ego account, or by just being dishonest about their own play.

The sad thing is that those arsonist are not only rewarded by flames, but also enjoy sympathy and their saint alter egos also get respect. Unlike real man/woman who do good and bad things and receive feedback, these trolls get away with everything.


I can't speak for anyone except myself (though I hope that most people agree with me) BUT I don't find anything inherently inflammatory in what Gawain does. If he finds something on the internet that he wants to share, so be it. His intent is to inspire intelligent, rational debate. Anyone saying otherwise, even if it is based on the end result of a specific thread that went to hell, is guilty of casting aspersions on Gawain's character and motives. What bothers me about this is that alot of people seem use as their primary motivation for wishing to ban such threads this image of the knuckle-dragging ideologue out to club people to death (or agreement) with insidious articles culled from the nether-reaches of the dark and dastardly recesses of Ann Coulter's soul. If one were to respond intelligently to these articles, that might set the tone of discussion. We apply this logic already to normal posts. I don't see a reason we cannot do so here.

Also: The last two posts deal with a sort of person that I have no doubt exists. This person is spoken of in general terms. It is my hope (and insofar as I have faith in the posters, my assumption) that there aren't any subtle accusations being made. Correct?

[Ghost of Rom]

Hmmm...thought liberals were big on free speech and such...

[TosaInu]

Gawain..

..It is my hope (and insofar as I have faith in the posters, my assumption) that there aren't any subtle accusations being made. Correct?

Adding 1 and 2 in your post, no I don't accuse Gawain. I do know though that such people exist. I will celebrate the day they discover how fun it is to play with Barbie & Ken and devote the rest of their life to groom her hair.

[Adrian II]

I do know though that such people exist.I don't get it either, TosaInu. Are some people using multiple accounts in order to troll the .org and is this your way of saying that you are on to them? If so, I hope you will be successful.
:bow:

[Proletariat]

Come to think of it... Has anyone ever seen TosaInu and Gawain at the same time?

Hm.

[Productivity]

No I'm Spartacus? ~:handball:

[Adrian II]

Come to think of it... Has anyone ever seen TosaInu and Gawain at the same time?

Hm.How about you and Byzantine Prince? Hm? http://matousmileys.free.fr/w07.gif

[Kagemusha]

How about you and Byzantine Prince? Hm? http://matousmileys.free.fr/w07.gif

Or you and Pindar,Adrian II.Hm? :deal:

[Adrian II]

Or you and Pindar,Adrian II.Hm? :deal:http://matousmileys.free.fr/whistling.gif

[Kagemusha]

I knew it! ~;) But seriosly i think its bit scitshofrenic if some patrons are using multiple accounts. :stars:

[Adrian II]

I knew it! ~;) But seriosly i think its bit scitshofrenic if some patrons are using multiple accounts. :stars:The wording of that statement is self-defeating in so far as it speaks to the validity of your premiss. But hey, there are some real weirdos out there.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/toctoc3.gif

[Kagemusha]

The wording of that statement is self-defeating in so far as it speaks to the validity of your premiss. But hey, there are some real weirdos out there.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/toctoc3.gif

"The wording of that statement is self-defeating in so far as it speaks to the validity of your premiss."Is that Pindar speaking? :inquisitive: Because as a non native english speaker i didnt understand a word you said in that sentence.It sounds awfully like a lawyer speaking.But i agree that there are some pretty weird people in this world. :bow:

[Proletariat]

Haven't laughed that hard at a few posts on here in weeks. 'Cept for the paper-cup thread.

[Kagemusha]

Nice to hear that Proletariat. :bow: I have noticed that novadays i have that kind of effect on women.Only few years a go they smiled on me nicely,now they outright laugh at me. :embarassed:

[Adrian II]

Haven't laughed that hard at a few posts on here in weeks. 'Cept for the paper-cup thread.Speaking of which -- if the Saudis had rioted over those paper cups, I bet you'd be blaming Newsweek again...
http://matousmileys.free.fr/wallholz.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Actually my other name here is Jag. Thats why we have almost the same number of posts. I cant help it Im a Gemini. I have to keep things in balance.

[TosaInu]

Actually my other name here is Jag. Thats why we have almost the same number of posts. I cant help it Im a Gemini. I have to keep things in balance.

rofl

[Azi Tohak]

Nice to see TosaInu participating in the off-topic-ness. That is pretty funny though Gawain. But... I see you have suppressed your other half. How did you pull that one off? More or less prozac in the diet?

And Adrian II. What the heck is that thing on your head? The little yellow mouse ears looking thing.

Azi

[JAG]

Actually my other name here is Jag. Thats why we have almost the same number of posts. I cant help it Im a Gemini. I have to keep things in balance.

Now that even has me worried.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Actually my other name here is Jag. Thats why we have almost the same number of posts. I cant help it Im a Gemini. I have to keep things in balance.
.
ROTFL! ~:joker:

(I'm a gemini too.)
.

[Adrian II]

And Adrian II. What the heck is that thing on your head? The little yellow mouse ears looking thing.That's Proletariat sitting on my head.

[Big_John]

That's Proletariat sitting on my head.it was bound to happen...

[Adrian II]

it was bound to happen...Greetings Brother Big John! So who's sitting on your head these days? ~:handball: :cool:

[Big_John]

no comment. :blank2:

[Byzantine Prince]

How about you and Byzantine Prince? Hm? http://matousmileys.free.fr/w07.gif
Yeah proleteriat is the exact opposite acount I have. It's a female conservative capitalist disguised with a communist name. BP is a male liberal disguised with a consevative name and has conservative ideals mixed with socialism. :dizzy2:

So you see?

[Proletariat]

Must... resist... posting in.. this.. thread.. or lose... edit button....completely!

:lipsrsealed2:

[Papewaio]

Death threats Cut N Pasted From Magazines. ~:eek:

[Adrian II]

Death threats Cut N Pasted From Magazines. ~:eek:Heh, this is brilliant. :bow:

[Byzantine Prince]

I neeeed my boooootle.... whereeeeee's the naaaaaaaaaaaanyyy??? Ser!!! :snobby:

[Sjakihata]

I agree with Idaho the C&Ps need to go.

[Reverend Joe]

I swear, this thread only makes sense when I'm high.

[Proletariat]

If you're not blaming Newsweek, nothing will make sense.

[Divinus Arma]

I swear, this thread only makes sense when I'm high.

I Knew it! You are a hippy! Hey, and I tried to bring clarity to your kaliedescoped mind. Did I not?

Wait. Oh ya, I'm a drunk. :rolleyes:

I guess I shouldn't be talking smack then. ~:cheers: ~D

One man's drug is another man's medicine. Fair enough, my hippy friend.


And Gawain, that was the funniest thing I have ever seen you write.


Back on topic. Keep the cut and pastes. It is a great way to open a debate. :book:

[Reverend Joe]

Actually, I have a taste for tequila and spiced vodka myself...

Anyway, I see no use for cut and pastes; if you want to reference an article, just use a link. With cut and pastes, it is also possible to take a phrase severly out of context.

For example, take this quote from Sexus:
"...the origional creation, which is taking place all the time... belongs to the primal flux; it has no dimensions, no form, no time element. In this preliminary state, which is creation and not birth, what disappears suffers no destruction...."

This could easily be misconstrued as an argument that abortion is not immoral because it is not destroying a true entity, only a creation. However, what Henry Miller was writing about was creativity, and the writing process. The "origional creation" is an idea for a book, or poem or something of the like. Hence, cutting and pasting is dangerous, because it allows the paster to edit out portions that disagree with his argument, or even warp and manipulate something totaly unrelated to his liking.

[Strike For The South]

I really could care lees about cps whatever the mods/admins decide i will follow since they are my master :bow: