The Let's Pile on GoRight Diary!
OK. So there has been a lot of blustery talk about how I am a problem for the site. I want people to post here and give me their honest assessment. Has my recent behavior or my behavior overall been a problem? Am I driving people away as BR claims? Do I truly provide no value here?
I will admit that I have been too busy to post diaries and therefore lack substance in that venue, but I regularly bring new topics to the open threads for discussion. Yes, I have been using my pointy stick to poke at Obama. Last I heard Obama is not immune from attack here. Other posters are supposed to be. And there is one poster here that consistently and flagrantly ignores that fact and not only against myself. I have consistently stated that I will fight fire with fire, and that applies to personal attacks from other posters on this site. If you can't take the heat, don't attack me.
However, while I may look like a 6 year old sometimes based on my posts I am an adult. I assume we are all adults. I assume we can all act like adults when we need to. So fine, here's your chance to show it. I invite, no, I specifically request that everyone provide me someconstructive feedback. BR might as well stay out of this because I will ignore him in this thread. Tlaloc is more than welcome to chime in although I suspect that he won't.
What I want to hear is:
(1) do you think I am more of the "problem" (whatever that is) than anyone else here?
(2) would you prefer for me to simply leave?
(3) what, if anything, do you think I bring to the site in terms of value?
(4) what, if anything, am I doing that you feel is significantly detrimental to the site?
(5) what, in your opinion, would you like to see me change to improve things here?
(6) any other comments that might come to mind.
I ask you to be brutally honest, but please try to be an adult in this case. I am giving a free pass to anyone that posts here in terms of my holding a grudge or whatever. There shall be no reprisals or hard feelings on my part toward anyone who participates.
You all seem to be hungering for some serious discussion, well here's a serious topic. If you give me honest and forthright feedback I will give you honest and forthright responses.
I am absolutely serious about this, so please have at it. I am mature and objective enough to accept constructive criticism, especially when I am directly asking for it.
UPDATE:
Oh, and if you want to say something nice about me that is OK too! :) (But don't feel obligated to do so.)
UPDATE 2:
And this is NOT a goodbye cruel world diary. The only way it would become that is if the vast majority of responses here were essentially saying, <cue music> Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more ...
- GoRight's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
I wouldn't say you're
a problem for this site, GoRight. Your response to my sparring challenge was certainly thoughtful.
The fact that I find you wrong about, well, everything doesn't mean I want you to leave. It makes me want to turn you or at least demonstrate your folly to other posters. To get real back and forth we actually need more red-blooded Republicans anyway, not fewer.
I also know that posters evolve with time. I remember Ender when this site was first started; he's much different (I would say better now). I cringe when I think of all the stuff I wrote as a noob poster (mostly on dailyKos and redstate). Not that I'm calling you inexperienced; it just means that I don't believe in categorizing any poster and shutting them out.
Anyhoo: please stick around. Who knows, I may even learn something from you :)
OK, thanks.
Yes, I think we still need to get to know each other but I see no reason we can't have a good exchange and such on a variety of topics. I haven't forgotten that I owe you a reply but some things came up today so it may take me a while to got to it. There is no hurry, I assume, so stick with me. I won't just disappear even though it may take me a while to post my next comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR: Here is Your annual Performance Review..
Greetings,
So here is my take on your impact to the site.
I sometimes feel like you don't take us seriously. Although some people cerainly may return the favor, it seems that you usually throw a grenade into the debate just because Teh Libruls did it during the Bush Administration. If you notice however, in general SwordCrossed posters were not a Bush hate site. Certainly there was disagreement with policies, but that whole Bushhitler/war criminal/hates the poor stuff was generally best left to other sites.
SC is supposed to be a welcome influence to all political persuasions. We have some signature righties, plenty of lefties, some mushy moderates, and eccentric libertarian types. We even have a resident anarchist.
The impression I get from you sometimes is like this:
GR: Obama is a child molester.
P1: What the hell?
GR: Why can't I criticize the President?
Its things like that make me ask are you serious. Then you respond with, "that's what the liberals did." To that I say forget them!
Other than that I think you sometimes do contribute to the debate in a meaningful way. And that I like. And I will continue to try my best to agree and disagree with you in a respectful way. Who knows, maybe I'll have an impact. So I'd like you to stay on. Hope we see you next year this time.
*Stands up, shakes GR's hand*
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Thank you, sir.
I sincerely appreciate the feedback. Is there any word on this year's raises, yet? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I am new being active and posting, so take it for what it is
worth.
I would suggest this site needs more, not less of your political perspective.
It is rendering for the most part, with few noted exceptions, as a moderate and radical neo-liberal echo chamber.
I hope you will stay.
Whether I will remains to be seen.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition From Mediocre Minds...~ A. Einstein
Thanks.
I hope you stick around too. Give us at least a couple of months so you get to know the local personalities and I think you'll like it around here. We have our quirks but that's what makes us interesting.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4My two cents
I don't know if it's just objectiveness, open-mindedness (or is that mushy middleness
), or good old fashioned reading comprehension, but I "get" your posting style and have no problems with it.
I can tell the difference between those days when you're bored and just fishin' (or throwing a firecracker in the room to see if anyone reacts) and when you're fed up, or when you're having a real swordfight with, say, Montoya. I have also seen you post plainly and honestly. I enjoy writing which employs more than just exposition; irony, irreverance, satire, and even Tlaloc' darker sardonic style and BR's easily-provoked exasperation all inject a bit of personality into what otherwise could be just words on a page. I find it helps flesh out the person at the keyboard. It turns us into individuals, instead of stereotypes or caricatures.
Personally, I love the rainbow that is humanity.
I think the whole point of this site is to bring disparate types together.
Well-put.
As for the "mushy-middleness" thing, what I (and perhaps GR) take issue with is the presumption of reasonableness or openmindedness for someone who doesn't use a party label.
Deciding that one side has more merit than the other does not imply loss of objectivity.
I don't want to sidetrack GR's diary
But that statement
might make a decent diary someday.
Thanks, PF.
You have on many occasions demonstrated that you at least see where I am coming from in these excahnges. You tend to stay out of the fray but at interesting times you pop up with a bit of support or a smack up side my head and I thank you for that, so don't change anything on your end. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, I don't agree with the big fuss
...if there really is one.
I have no problem with you or anyone else.
As always, John.
Short and to the point. I like that about you! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're OK for a wingnut. ;)
Joking about the wingnut part - I actually only find a few of your views completely crazy.
But, you are more likely than most other participants here to provoke a reply from me, which I consider a good thing. I don't come here just to read a bunch of stuff I agree with.
That said, it does seem that lately many of the discussions here have been more meta-arguments about how to argue, rather than actual arguments about issues. I don't mind a little of that, but it gets boring fast. I think I've made myself pretty clear regarding my opinion of your Golden Rule schtick, so no need to rehash that! :)
I will say that you have also been involved in some of the most enjoyable discussions that I've participated in at SC, and I do feel that I know you well enough that I don't take any real offense to anything you say, even when you are being a big jerk. :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Thanks.
I pretty much say ditto. Right back at you. Your comments are pretty much on the mark as to when I am arguing a position in earnest vs. when I am not. And I agree that we have had some good exchanges.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ok, honest feedback
No. Sure we don't have that much "quality" right now, but that comes and goes with a site this small and is not any one person's fault. By far the biggest problem with this site is that there is too few participants... a fact that has to do with the fact that we are well off the beaten path, not because we drive people away or turn off visitors IMO. In fact, it seems to me that we have a very high retention rate. But having this few participants, sometimes individual participants can't find anything that interests them.
No, of course not.
Good humor most of the time, willingness to engage in rhetorical battle which is what this site should be at its best. The Sean Bell debate I enjoyed, tho it was almost like having a part time job for a few days...
Some stuff is over the line. The Kennedy diary, for instance, was just mean-spirited garbage :-[
I perceive that you've gotten a little soft on providing actual evidence recently. I think that my main problem with the GR Golden Rule is that you never pin down what your original grievance is. It's always just this vague "they were mean to Bush" thing. That's not good enough. If you are going to purposely make an unfair attack againsst some liberal because you claim that the same line of attack was used agaist Bush I have no problem with that per se, but you should have to post one good example of where that line of attack was used against Bush and was the attack well received by liberals.
Keep trying, one day you may actually win an argument vs. me!*
*I concede that we may have tied once or twice ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
OK, so I think I have you zeroed in, skymutt.
This is about what I would have expected from you. So it is good that we have an understanding of sorts, right?
Ahh, good. I see you have mastered the GoRight art of putting on a false facade! Excellent work young padawan. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Heh
Nope, I was just being totally truthful there-- all wins* for skymutt, except one or two ties, maybe ;-)
*You are free to disagree... I would just ask, as a courtesy, for you to point out the argument(s) that you believe you won, so that I may correct the record books if necessary.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
No, the list will be much shorter to go through ...
if you were to provide the list of arguments that you believe you won. Why tackle the bigger of the two lists by focusing on my wins?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If I focus on _my list_ of your wins..
....I'd be focusing on a big empty expanse of white pixelspace, and it kind of gets hard on the eyes...
I wouldn't take it too hard that you haven't actually won any arguments. I still consider you to be my equal in these types of debates as far as skill; the record is just a natural result of your choice to nearly always lead with untenable or near-untenable positions, and getting to just a tie from such a position would be no minor accomplishment.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
See, this isn't fair
Me:
You:
We're saying pretty much the same thing, I more concisely and you more eloquently. And yet I get the B Rational "hyperpartisan" tag and you don't. I need to change my bar color or something.
:)
Gee, skymutt, I can't help but think that you are doing your best to emulate my own style against me! :) Again. Excellent work young padawan!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Anyone with much interest
Anyone with much interest and/or free time who wants to see a good example of GR's combination of consistent utter idiocy and/or consistent utter disingenuousness (and contemplate to what extent that crap detracts from SC and reduces its appeal to current and would-be new members) can read as much as he/she can bear of my exchanges with GR throughout the thread starting at swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-107696
For the idiocy part, it's best seen by just reading through the back-and-forth and seeing how, time-and-time again GR says something that is illogical or otherwise absurd and I respond by explaining why, only to be met with more of the same.
As for what is almost certainly at least in part the disingenuous part, I'll paste from that thread my enumerated description of GR's modus operandi:
Perhaps some of you wish to comment on the above (GR's modus operandi), hopefully to let him know he's not fooling anyone (sure, sometimes he may be goofing around, but come on, the guy obviously, frequently, disingenuously uses the fall-back of "Oh, I didn't mean that as a serious argument" when he's been called on some bullsh*t argument or "Oh, I was just using that tone to immitate that guy, not because that was really my tone"), and to encourage him to cut the crap and stand by his arguments and tone rather than disown them when called on bullsh*t comments and lame commenting behavior.
Oh, and before GR or anyone else states the obvious while missing the point, yes, exchanges like that also detract from the site and turn people away, which is why I wouldn't do it more than occasionally, but obviously I engaged in that type of uninteresting discourse to try to mitigate the aforementioned problem, which is worth a shot once in a while.
Second "oh", and I don't intend to spend much, if any, further time dealing with GR on this matter, at least for a while. But since this thread is here, it would be remiss of me not to contribute to the discussion at least a bit beyond what I said and demonstrated (with GR's inadvertent help) on that other thread.
BR,
This seems plainly obvious to me:
Only it's not a cop out explanation.
He's being quite serious about how whimsical and unserious he's being....if you get my meaning.
I just chuckle and shake my head when he lays those provocative firecrackers out there....because I know he's doing it to get some kicks and drum up some reactions. Why would he do this? Because, to GR, he's showing liberals how it felt (in his view) to be in his shoes all these years so he mimics what he considers to have been their behavior.
Now yes, laced in there are surly some statements and assertions about which he may be totally serious but I don't think it's too hard to separate the "Taste of your own medicine"-jabs from serious comments.
I'm not here to judge winners and losers nor am I trying to take sides. I don't even agree with a number of GR's genuinely held positions. But that's OK. I "get him"...as PF also said above.
I can kind of tell when he's being sincere and enagaging and when he joshing around looking to get a rise from people.
It's all good. People just have use judgement and perhaps not suffer un-serious comments if they are not inclined to play along.
my 2 cents.
As I said, I think there are
As I said, I think there are times, perhaps many times, when he is indeed throwing out stuff in some mocking way -- which itself is obnoxious, disruptive, wastes people's time, and makes participation on SC less attractive/enjoyable/productive, considering that at least some people will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is serious -- but I think you may be vastly understimating the frequency with which he is merely using that claim as an excuse when he gets called on bullsh*t he tried to pass off as a legitimate argument (like the kid who loses and says "Aw, I wasn't really trying anyway"). For one thing, it's clear that the guy ain't too bright (in terms of logical, relevant argumentation), so I rather doubt he's being truthful every time (or even most of the time) that he claims after the fact that he wasn't really trying to argue something that he argued but can't defend upon being challenged. It would be too much of a coincidence if every time a stupid guy said something stupid it was intentional.
edit: Just as a note, it seems that others on SC don't have much of a problem with GR, so I don't wish to spend any more time on it. All I can say, for whatever it's worth, is that, as you know, I was once very enthusiastic about SC and willing to devote pro bono marketing consulting time to growing it (and did do so, meeting with Y ["Ender"], put together a first draft growth strategy, brainstormed with the Contributors, etc.), and now, due largely to the volume of crap from GR (which wasn't there back then), along with a high volume of crap from another individual that was present then, too, plus a couple of new hyperpartisan members, combined with the absence of the Brendan's excellent comments (all of which means much less high quality combined with much more low quality), the ratio of good stuff to crap today is such I wouldn't even recommend SC to someone because I'd be too embarrassed. No offense to the several folks here who offer worthwhile, quality diaries and comments; it's just that if a third or more of the content is really dumb sh*t, I just can't recommend SC to people (let alone work to grow it). And it's a shame to see a concept like SC, with the potential it has and could have, wasted by a couple of jack*sses polluting the site, as seems to be happening.
Thanks, John.
This actually is correct, even if BR won't accept it as such. It's not like I have some carefully planned out scenario to play. It's not like I made an explicit decision that today I am going to do this or that. It depends on my mood. Some days I feel like being pointy, some days I don't.
I definitely know when I am lobbing out a firecracker. I should hope that it is obvious to others when I am making a totally over the top comment, but perhaps I play the part too well. Or perhaps the written medium doesn't given the visual cues one would get face to face about how serious I am or am not on a given thread.
I am serious about the GoRight Golden Rule, but not obsessive about it. I just wait for something good and juicy that can be exploited to make that firecracker and then I go with it. After that I have no plan other than to follow the conversation where it leads. I make up my side of the argument on the fly. There is a sort of challenge to making a completely over-the-top statement and then seeing how far you can take it. See if you can actually hold up that side of the argument no matter how absurd it may be on its face.
Sometimes I can maintain the point, sometimes I can't. When I find myself argued into a position where I can no longer maintain the facade, I fess up. I can't simply concede the point because then people would think I was actually making the argument because I actually believed every aspect of what I was arguing, when I didn't. By doing this I am demonstrating how easy it is to take over the top commentary and still make an at least plausible case for it. I am illustrating that you can't buy into every plausible sounding argument that might come along.
But I guess I can understand why this annoys BR so much. He prides himself on being logical and so, if me manages to "win" an argument he doesn't like having the rug pulled out from under him by having his opponent drop the facade and claim they didn't really mean it.
I think that's fair on his part. He just has to recognize that when I do drop the facade that is the defacto, OK, you win moment. At that point I have decided that I can no longer maintain the position and, in effect, you have successfully called me on that point. Your win is every bit as legitimate in that case from a logic point of view, regardless of whether I was playing a role or being genuine. If you successfuly demonstrate that the position has no leg to stand on you have done so regardless of whether I was play acting or not. I will have been cornered with no way out so I fess up.
Personally, I think that this generates a lot of good exchanges. I always try to make substantive points to support my positions. I always try to argue like I believe exactly what I am saying. In that sense the argument truly is real, so if you get me to drop the facade you have clearly won the argument in my mind, at least.
Does anyone here believe that I truly think that Obama is an Osama Bin Laden operative? Seriously? I mean, come on.
Does anyone here believe that the Bush is Hitler crowd truly believes that Bush is as bad as Hitler? Seriously? I don't. I think that they are putting on a facade just like I do. There may be a few true nutcases out there but all of them? No way.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Does anyone here believe
Obvious, stupid straw man. See what I mean? Maybe the guy can't help it; maybe it's just stupidity. Or maybe it's deliberate straw men. Either way, it brings the site down. Not that I intend to go through another endless exchange in which I explain the faults in GR's logic/argumentation, but just to use this as an example, quite obviously I was not talking about such obvious cases (duh). Again, anyone interested need only look at the thread to which I linked, starting with the very first comment by GR here swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-107696
(Hardly as obvious that he's not making a serious contention as is his straw man example, right -- again, duh GR). See, this is the kind of incessant, consistent stupidity and/or disingenuousness that I'm talking about (although there are threads that offer more abundant, even clearer, more severe cases). I would like to think that most folks here are smart enough to see such a ridiculous, obvious straw man when you see one, whether or not you call GR on it (and why would you bother? Whenever his arguments are shown to be invalid or absurd, he claims he didn't really mean it).
In all fairness, BR
I think that Bin Laden comment was more general and not directed at you in particular.
Please note ...
that as promised I am ignoring BR in this diary. A technique I learned from Tlaloc. Note also that my reply was to your post, John, not BR's.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Seems to me that what GR was
Seems to me that what GR was addressing is my point that he is lying at least much of the time when he claims he didn't really mean some argument he presented and persisted with, and his argument/implication was that it is obvious that he is just kidding in some way (e.g., that kind of hyperbole) when he is doing so. So I'm calling that a straw man, which it is, per my explanation.
And re: But I guess I can
And re:
Give me a friggin' break. Or perhaps I should ask how stupid you think people here are. First of all, you are just plain full of it. As I said, quite often you are trying to sincerely argue some point, and when you end up having trouble defending it, you fall back on your crutch of falsely claiming that you weren't serious (again, like the insecure kid who plays poorly or loses and then claims he wasn't really trying). I guess you are indeed fooling at least some of the people, some of the time here. Second, your silly gobbledygook above notwithstanding, you are trying to equate two totally different things AND you are missing the point. My goal is not to "win" an argument (yet another example of your cluelessness), but rather to explore and learn more through intelligent discussion/debate with someone who is discussing/debating in good faith (which, by the way, can include someone who may be playing Devil's advocate, which is categorically different from what you do, lest you try to weasel over in that direction, as you may be trying to do). What you do is waste my (and others') time with bullsh*t arguments, incessant nonsensical follow-up replies, and then silly, false claims that you never really meant any of it, rather engaging in good-faith discussion/debate.
You do indeed present a "facade", but in the many cases to which I'm referring, you present this facade at the exact point at which you claim to be dropping some other facade. The facade, if you need this spelled out for you, is your oft-repeated claim that, essentially, you weren't really serious in all your prior comments on the topic.
Does the Rainbow Man think what he did was right?
I can introduce you to a few people in Huron County, Ohio that actually do suspect that or worse.
I don't think that the crowd was that big, and the few in it, probably mostly actually believed it. People still don't know that Afghanistan and Iraq bookend Iran, people can base their decisions off of bad intelligence.
Hitler was much worse, he killed the people he thought were out to kill Germans.
Bush "only" tortured them.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sorry.
Have to correct you on this point: there was no torture.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Run to the the hills, run for your life
Iron Maiden's and accusations of spitting on the cross don't need to be involved for it to be torture.
Realistic Simulations of Drowning is/has been considered torture by anyone that has gone through it.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
At least this isn't a chain mail
1: You're far less of a problem than any of the random members posting ads on old diaries.
2: Nope
3: A different POV when GR's Golden Rule isn't raining down
4: GR's Golden Rule
5: Don't bring back GR's Golden Rule
6: Go Bucks!?!
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I am beginning to sense ...
that your are not entirely convinced that GoRight's Golden Rule is a good thing. Did I hear that correctly? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well...
GoRight, you're sometimes thoughtful, often annoying, and occasionally very funny -- and even though you wind people up probably too much, I think people here are pretty fond of you.
This place could become an echo chamber -- and that wouldn't be any good at all. So, on those occasions when you take the time to really articulate a thoughtful conservative position your participation is absolutely essential here.
This place could also become a hyperpartisan political hack fest... sort of like the back and forth that occasionally goes on between RedState and DKos... except all the time. That would be a lot of fun for a few people... but would probably kill any real usefulness this site might have.
I don't comment often at all, so I'm not responding as a debater -- just as a reader. The reason I still come here to read is that there's an interesting mix of perspectives. It really is interesting to see conservative, libertarian, liberal, and moderate views (and others I guess -- there've been socialists & anarchists & other assorted types here in the past). When a real discussion breaks out in the middle of an argument I often learn a lot by reading comments here. But the partisan back and forth gets old. I can look at DKos and RedState and get my fill of that without coming here. And I don't mean to imply that it's all you -- of course it isn't, and sometimes the best response to something ridiculous is ridicule. It's just a question of frequency, I guess.
So -- thanks for being a reliable contributer, and providing interesting commentary when you do that, and dang you for ridiculous partisan posturing that makes thoughtful conversation difficult or impossible when you do that.
And kudos all around to all the people here who care about trying to understand and learn from one another.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Thanks.
I appreciate the feedback. I will take it to heart. Perahps the partisan schtick is getting a bit thick. I think that is a fair comment over-all.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How 'bout that. Maybe some
How 'bout that. Maybe some bit of good will come of all this. Kudos to Puppethead for the soft diplomacy approach.
Just a note: If one simply
Just a note: If one simply wants a blog to have hyperpartisan conservatives engaging in bad faith to balance out hyperpartisan liberals engaging in bad faith, there already was and is such a blog: Forvm. The choice need not be between a one-sided hyperpartisan echo chamber or a two-sided (or multi-sided) hyperpartisan food fight. SC used to be, and perhaps still is to some extent (albeit diminishing) a place where there was quality, good-faith discussion/debate, not hyperpartisan crap or other bad-faith conduct, nor such a large portion of idiocy (not saying most -- and again, no offense to the majority here).
Perhaps you've seen some intelligent, thoughtful conservative stuff from GR that I haven't yet seen, but even there's a bit of that, the assorted crap from him (in terms of content and conduct) is sufficiently abundant to bring down SC and ruin the concept and mission that I always associated with SC of being an oasis of intelligent, good-faith discussion/debate among folks with a variety of ideological perspectives.
I suppose at some point if I'm willing to devote enough time to it, I could start a blog to pursue the vision from which SC seems to be drifting, and screen out upfront somehow and/or foster a culture in which the conduct and content I'm talking about is strongly discouraged so that the only participants are people who can bring a decent brain and are willing the use it in good faith. If I could attract some SCers and several other people I've gotten to know in the blogosphere along the way, and apply some marketing strategy, it's quite possible we could grow it -- as we could have grown SC if it hadn't gone downhill as I've described -- into something significant by blog standards, positioned as that aforementioned oasis for those seeking intelligent, good-faith discussion/debate. I'll know if I found time I could get some good P.R. for it and apply some cost-effective growth tactics (I happen to be a marketing strategy consultant). Anyway, just something way down on my to-do list for now. Shame though, that SC's quality and potential has diminished so much due to just a couple of individuals, although I guess if most folks here don't have much of a problem with it, as seems to be the case, then the community plays a role in that unfortunate development and trend. Apparently I'm expecting too much.
Beer-gazing......
A good marketing strategy consultant should be able to package SC effectively, warts and all, no?
/end yanking BR's chain
Cheer up. The essence of liberty and democracy is that everyone has the freedom to hold whatever opinions they desire. In the voting booth, you , me, GR, ML, and the holy Brendan all get exactly the same right --- just one vote.
Scary, isn't it? ;-)
Indeed.
;)
Hey, I'm all for liberty,
Hey, I'm all for liberty, democracy and one person, one vote. Doesn't mean it's not a shame to see the wasted potential of a blog site that could make (and could have made on a much larger scale) an important contribution to political discourse in a nation in which political discourse is going downhill fast. In fact, it is largely because of that freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and one person, one vote that blog sites reflecting what I thought was SC's vision and mission are important in terms of shaping public policy as well as providing an oasis for the benefit of the participants themselves. Oh well, I don't intend to spend much more time bemoaning the matter, since I've made made my argument, and among the SCers who have commented on this thread views seem to reflect disagreement with me regarding the magnitude of the problem, and to some extent complacency.
I say again, I consider it a shame that SC has gone from what it was when I first joined and what it is now.
As for:
Not necessarily. It's somewhat limiting to sell something as transportation when it doesn't move you around (hence the probably apocryphal, but oft-told tale of the Chevy "Nova" selling poorly in Latin America because of it's brand name). Moreover, at least with regard to my helping to grow SC as I was once willing to do pro bono, why would I do so now if I didn't see a societal benefit that I considered worth my contributing that time?