Page 3 of 4 First 123 4 Last

1. less backroom.

Edit the offending post rather than close the whole deal is what I meant :).

Yeah, the backroom is not visible/viewable to guest. I suggested this in the Watchtower awhile ago.

Same posters, same topics, basically.

I see. You like people arguing 'Jerry Springer' style.

edit: not a problem to me, because I can filter it out easily, but it detracts from the actual discussion.

Well, I did mentioned the word "standalone". It's akin to saying, "I'm right because my grandma said so".

I hadn't read "foul" language policy post since it was modified last August. I just reread Ser Clegane's current post and I have no complaints. Most notable: I retract what I wrote earlier about the policy.

The problem with that fallacy list is that it doesn't tell you what is correct logic, which means it's useless. For example one of the examples of "strawman" says this is a fallacy:

- x wants to abolish the submarine program. I don't understand how he wants to leave us that defenseless.

It's not entirely correct to just call that a fallacy. It's assuming implicitly that the submarines are useful for defense, but it's not explicitly stated. The conclusion can still be correct, but it requires one more premise to be stated explicitly for the deduction to be complete, namely "our army without the submarine program is much weaker than with the submarine program". Often such details have to be understood and not explicitly stated, because if you have to mention every implicit premise you won't be doing anything else. That can't be done in written form, but it's however useful when reasoning to think of which things are assumed and not mentioned explicitly. Is the abolishment really abolishment, or is the money going to some other military program, etc.

So while the conclusion of that argument might be correct, someone who has read the fallacy list would immediately say it's incorrect, while it doesn't have to be in reality. That's why I'd recommend mathematical logic and discrete mathematics which gives good examples of correct logic too, as a guide to logic.

Seconded.

I like the backroom just fine how it is i think its Great.

Prehaps more merging of similar threads would be good,
But im a happy camper.

I object. I miss my sig in all its glory (see below). I had that quote for years without offending anyone.....

Don't get me wrong: I'm a critic of the whole concept of "forbidden words" (I would expand on that, but we should have a separate thread for that kind of detail). But I think it is better that the Backroom has a flexible policy (case-by-case judgement), rather than a rigid list of banned utterances. This forum is not a public service.

In the old days, I remember a fair number of "adult words" used pretty sparingly. The mods felt they had to intervene when things got out of hand later.

"adult words"? .. you mean people were talking about things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, and taking responsibilities? talk about "mature audiences"! no wonder the mods got involved.

That's it! That is the, the thing I heard about! Um, they call it 'life'. And it involves meeting other people (yikes!) and going outdoors and not being logged in all night and stuff.

Was this long ago? Has anybody been there?

No, I mean words that have been in use for more than 18 years.

Sorry for the tangent, Mods.

I remember the old days as well....back then everything was sepia. And you could use a quote calling the soldiers of 18th century Naples cowardly natural sons without concern.

back then you could have a moderator with a name that questioned his parentage and nobody cared! these are bad times we live in nowadays..woe..

What about a court at the backroom? Like a Watchtower inside a subsection. You could get your complain to them. I don't like the restriction either, but at least it's a flexible restriction, maybe your case could be revisited.

Now see my sig in all its glory! Cheers Soly.

PS
No insulting anyone you lot. This is not a general amnesty!

There could be more functional nudity.

I like your sig.

But to be on topic...
Please dont change the backroom 2 much...
I think i have the rules figured out now, And i really do like it in the back room.

Just maby merge similar threads 1ce a week or something.
Would be perfect IMO.

"Better The devil you know"

I'd like to the restrictions surrounding the human body loosened a little. There was a particular video whose location I had found that would have shattered the 'Asian women vs. All others' competition in the 'All others' favour, but was unable to share because there were nipples involved.

less talk more walk FREE TIBET! FREE TIBET!

*drinks a beer and reads threads in the Front Room*

No nudity, please. Reading the backroom from work is bad enough, I don't need pr0n urls showing up...

Here's a rough approximation of an old joke:

-------------------------------
Did you hear about the young criminal who was sentenced to Alcatraz Island, home of all the toughest prisoners? First day on the recreation yard, he was walking tough, and trying to not look scared. In the center of the yard, a very elderly prisoner was sitting up on a stool. The old man would say a number "one hundred thirty two!" and everyone would laugh. He would call out another number "Seventyone" and they would all snicker.

The young inmate turned to someone and asked what was happening.

The older inmate replied that they had all been in prison so long that they had heard all the jokes. To save time they numbered the jokes, and knew them all by number.

The young inmate made his way over to the old inmate and tugged on his sleeve. To everyone's surprise the old man asked what the kid wanted.

"May I tell a few jokes?". The old man looked thoughtful and slowly got off the stool.

The kid got up. "Thirtysix!" he called in a high voice. And then he tried another number, and another.

Silence. Boredom. Flatline. No reaction. Finally he looked down to the old inmate and asked what was wrong.

"Some guys just can't tell a joke."
-------------------------------

The point? Let's number the "usual responses" to issues that we see repeating themselves over, and over, and over again.

The board software requires a minimum 3 characters for a post to 'take', so we start with 100, and maybe go by series, thus (just picking subjects off the top of my head):

100-series: General
200-series: Abortion
300-series: Gun Control
400-series: Iraq War

and so on.

So, a news article gets posted where a guy says: "If I wasn't busy here in Iraq defending freedom, I'd go back to teh trailer park in Bohunk, Arkansas, and slam Maybelline up against teh wall and shoot her with my Cheney special-edition shotgun, for aborting li'l Leroy Jr, that we made last new years eve, while we watched them thar Katrina victims get evicted from their free hotels on teh TV."

With the poster comment: "I AGREE!"

Subsequent posts, instead of mind-numbing 7 paragraph treatises on the sacredness of human life, shotguns and hurricanes, anbd then point-by-point rebuttals/counter-rebuttals, could be:

122.

Then:

Oh yeah? 214!

But, 365.

etc.

All that needs work is construcing the 'typical responses', and assigning numbers.

Too much work? OK. A second meager suggestion:

Immediate 3-day ban for any poster with so little self-control that he can't compose a post without the f-bomb, in any form. Starts fights, dilutes all arguments, and makes us all look cheap.

My 2c.

Make it better? Let me run it for 72 hours. I'll clean up this town of lawlessness.

**polishes badge, spits, rides off into the sunset**

I love your first suggestion, Kukri.
And Dave, I´m just gonna say 431, 457 and 477.

Ooooh, I used the F-bomb I think, Kukri hates me now. What if I use the "drunk" defense?

As usual Kukrikhan's cents are more like hundred dollar bills. Thanks for spending.

I was wondering: would you rather prefer different topics, or just different ways of discussing them?

KukriKhan, brilliant, just brilliant!

But people in general don't like to have their way of looking at the world altered, they want it reaffirmed. In the UK right wingers read the Telegraph and lefties the Guardian. It it would make sense to swop to see the other point of view, but people entrench, they don't adapt.

Secondly, people are social creatures, and most have friends who they like very dearly who when the see them don't get any startling news or information - they just rehash the past in a slightly different way. Those friends of ours we know their views and we are not going to change them, so most talk is at one level pointless as we could accurately guess the response, but as humans we need the interaction.

Only if I can, too; I admit I composed that post while under the influence - that would be 'PUI', Posting Under [the] Influence... guilty.

By way of contrition, I take on-board rory's point, which I hadn't considered: the theraputic effect of actually moving one's fingertips across the keyboard, to put together a coherent (to the writer, anyway) expression of what one thinks and feels. Assigning canned response numbers would rob the writer of that effect.

Still, from the readers' perspective - seeing the usual suspects typing their usual responses to the usual subjects - I think I'll try to put together a top 20 list of usual responses, just for the readers' amusement. Kind of like naming chess moves 'The Italian Gambit', 'The Sicilian Defense', etc.

Plus... then I can avoid my weekend 'clean-the-garage' chores.

Kukri,

Did you really move to Calexico?

For those of you not well-versed in Southern California geography, Calexico and Mexicali are essentially one (small) city that staddles the US/Mexico border. Both names were formed by creatively combining "Mexico" with "California".

We're talking Bordertown with a capital B, not to mention italics.

Another thing that would improve the Back Room is less posts about side subjects unrelated to the topic, like personal messages that could be PMed.

And aren't we talking Orson Welles too?

Page 3 of 4 First 123 4 Last