The main problem with this forum is that far too many of the most frequent posters (and you know who you are) spend way too much time in the bottom three layers of this pyramid and are far too eager to read anything they disagree with as though it was written with the worst possible tone and intent.
Attachment 3908
The other problem is that people often say totally incorrect things, and no one has the balls to correct them because they know they'll get slammed with responses that are almost totally in the bottom three layers of that pyramid. Worse yet, even when people post messages agreeing with the incorrect information, no one stands up and says "What you just said isn't true". Why? Probably because they're afraid of the flame war that will result if they speak up.
That's why I went into deep lurk mode and never post here anymore. Someone accused me of leaving because I "couldn't stand the heat", but after spending most of my life in warehouses and construction sites, I assure you I can both stand and generate more heat than most of you have ever encountered. I simply choose to not engage in pointless arguments or post in forums where people routinely berate me for things I've never said, positions I don't hold, or attitudes I don't have. Various people here have done that simply because they read everything they disagree with as though it was written in the worst possible tone and with the worst possible intentions.
If anyone wants concrete examples of what I'm talking about, keep reading. Otherwise good bye, and thank you for reading this far. Responses to this post are welcome and will be read, but I won't respond to them for the reasons I just stated.
Here is a perfect example of obviously incorrect information that someone agreed with and nobody challenged:
Facebook and other social media are
not government departments or government entities, nor were they "authorized" to do certain things. They are companies and the question being debated by government at all levels is this: Should they be treated like newspapers and other publications that can be held responsible for what they publish (including the content of the letters to the editor column) or should they be treated like telephone companies and ISPs that are simple pipelines and bear no responsibility what their customer transmit, or do we need to make new laws defining social media as a new creature with partial responsibility and partial immunity?
And this thread is an example where a reasonable (but cliched) statement was made, I posted a polite logical reply, and happystuff posted a snarky reply claiming the first line of my post was actually saying the opposite of what it said:
I said what I said and I stand by it. I write and think in a journalist or academic style. The first line states an opinion or replies to what someone has said. the following lines explain in detail why I hold that opinion. And the final lines acknowledge potential counter arguments and explain why I disagree with them. If a person disagrees with my first line and wants to reply, they should at least read far enough to be sure they understand what my first line meant why I hold that opinion. If instead they post a snarky reply saying they only read the first line because they think the rest of my post is just me "rambling on", then they deserve and will get a snarky reply.
Originally Posted by GeorgeParker
The main problem with this forum is that far too many of the most frequent posters (and you know who you are) spend way too much time in the bottom three layers of this pyramid and are far too eager to read anything they disagree with as though it was written with the worst possible tone and intent.
Reply With Quote
