|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 2, 2007 22:47:53 GMT -6
This is not leveled at anyone specific, but I've been noticing some rather poor posting etiquette lately. So, in the spirit of improving the level of our political discourse, let me offer some "suggestions" for us all. These are not rules or regulations, and I'm certainly not going to enforce them or nag anyone; they are just some ideas that, in my opinion, will raise the level of enjoyment for all involved. Feel free to take them or leave them......Jake
********************************************
Posting Suggestions for Politics and World Events:
1. If you post an article or opinion piece that you swiped from some published source, try to provide a link to the source. This way we can see if you are just making shit up, or if you are presenting somebody else's work. And we can put it in context (i.e., NY Times vs. Fox News) and judge its credibility.
2. If you can't find a link and are posting from memory, tell us where you think you heard/read about it.
3. At the very least, tell us if it IS somebody else's thoughts, even if you don't remember where you heard it. That way, we won't have to think that you've just made it up yourself. I've seen some unreferenced editorials copied and pasted on this board, looking for all the world as if they were the poster's original musings, and I just KNEW that the person who posted it wasn't literate enough to have composed it themselves. (Unless you DID make it up yourself, of course, in which case you might want to state that, if it isn't obvious.)
4. There is no need to post entire mainstream news stories; we are all news junkies in this forum already and have probably seen it. Just posting a synopsis to refresh our memory, and maybe a link, is enough of a lead-in to your own thoughts, analyses, and opinions.
5. If you DON'T have any of your own thoughts, analyses, or opinions to add, why are you posting it in the first place?
6. Posting oddball stories from unusual sources, of course, that the rest of the gang might not have seen, is always a good idea. Even if all you have to add is a clever quip or jape.
7. If you post something within the Quote tags, the bulletin board software is going to want to make it real tiny. That's a bitch to read! Do us all a favor and, before you push POST REPLY, highlight the text inside the quote tags, and then just hit the "text size" button (the A with the up and down arrow thingy). That will set it all to size=2, like the regular text. Our old eyes will thank you for it.
8. If you feel the need to highlight part of your quoted text (or original text, for that matter) with a special color, for God's sake try to pick a color that contrasts well with the black background. I've had a hell of a time reading the text that some posters are trying to point out as the most important part of the post, but end up obscuring with poor color choices. That's what "preview" is for. You might want to use Bold or Italic instead of some silly color.
9. Feel free to add your own suggestions to this list of pet peeves. Anything to keep our standards of discussion high will benefit us all.
Thanks!........Jake
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 3, 2007 5:18:36 GMT -6
As for number 8, posting with an alternative color, I have been using red, which seems to stand out well enough (at least for my eyes) and avoid the confusion with orange, which proboards uses to highlight links.
|
|
|
Post by Christinko on Oct 3, 2007 7:30:34 GMT -6
I'd like to see good arguing techniques used rather than lame ones such as
ad hominem attacks: attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument; name calling
ad populum attacks: appealing to readers' general values such as patriotism or love of family
false authority: citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not a vetted expert
non sequitor: drawing conclusions from irrelevant evidence
post hoc fallacy: assuming that A caused B because A preceded B
either/or fallacy: reducing a complicated question to two alternatives
false analogy: exaggerating the similarities in an analogy or ignoring key differences
sweeping generalizations: asserting an opinion as applying to all instances when it may only apply to some or to none (stereotypes included)
appealing to reader's fear or pity
jumping to conclusions: basing thoughts on too little information
red herrings: introducing an irrevalant issue to distract readers
Info derived from The Little, Brown Handbook by Aaron & Fowler, 9th ed.
|
|
|
Post by Exildo Wonsetler Briggs III on Oct 3, 2007 8:03:06 GMT -6
I'd like to see good arguing techniques used rather than lame ones such as . . . Well there goes all my posts!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 3, 2007 8:15:07 GMT -6
She did an ad homonem on you Bob ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Oct 3, 2007 8:20:51 GMT -6
She did an ad homonem on you Bob ;D That's a lie, you sorry bastard. What kind of God-fearing person would say that? It's my way or the highway. I'll break your kneecaps (can't you help a poor Texan out?) if you don't straighten up your act. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kawaii Kaiju on Oct 3, 2007 8:27:06 GMT -6
Well there goes all my posts!! ;D Indeed, it looks to me like she just told me specifically to shut the fuck up also! Zilla (who was recently guilty of the grievous sin of not making the quote text larger)
|
|
|
Post by wareagle on Oct 3, 2007 8:35:02 GMT -6
I'd like to see good arguing techniques used rather than lame ones such as ad hominem attacks: attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument; name calling ad populum attacks: appealing to readers' general values such as patriotism or love of family false authority: citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not a vetted expert non sequitor: drawing conclusions from irrelevant evidence post hoc fallacy: assuming that A caused B because A preceded B either/or fallacy: reducing a complicated question to two alternatives false analogy: exaggerating the similarities in an analogy or ignoring key differences sweeping generalizations: asserting an opinion as applying to all instances when it may only apply to some or to none (stereotypes included) appealing to reader's fear or pityjumping to conclusions: basing thoughts on too little information red herrings: introducing an irrevalant issue to distract readers Info derived from The Little, Brown Handbook by Aaron & Fowler, 9th ed. Well, I guess I can't mention her panties anymore either.
|
|
|
Post by Christinko on Oct 3, 2007 8:52:05 GMT -6
But Steve--we weren't arguing so panty-talk is fine by me!
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 3, 2007 8:54:15 GMT -6
4. There is no need to post entire mainstream news stories; we are all news junkies in this forum already and have probably seen it. Just posting a synopsis to refresh our memory, and maybe a link, is enough of a lead-in to your own thoughts, analyses, and opinions Personally I prefer it when the entire article is posted and I can read it in one hit, or skim through it if I prefer, then click the link if I want to see if there are any pictures, comments or links to related articles. I prefer not to see just a couple of pertinent paragraphs from the article, I like to see those paragraphs highlighted (either in another colour or made bold) in context within the article posted in it's entirety. That is just my personal preference, but I guess we all have our different ways we like to see information presented. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 3, 2007 8:55:10 GMT -6
I'd like to see good arguing techniques used rather than lame ones such as ad hominem attacks: attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument; name calling ad populum attacks: appealing to readers' general values such as patriotism or love of family false authority: citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not a vetted expert non sequitor: drawing conclusions from irrelevant evidence post hoc fallacy: assuming that A caused B because A preceded B either/or fallacy: reducing a complicated question to two alternatives false analogy: exaggerating the similarities in an analogy or ignoring key differences sweeping generalizations: asserting an opinion as applying to all instances when it may only apply to some or to none (stereotypes included) appealing to reader's fear or pityjumping to conclusions: basing thoughts on too little information red herrings: introducing an irrevalant issue to distract readers Info derived from The Little, Brown Handbook by Aaron & Fowler, 9th ed. Well, I guess I can't mention her panties anymore either. You just did, but I think you got away with it Simon
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 3, 2007 8:59:43 GMT -6
8. If you feel the need to highlight part of your quoted text (or original text, for that matter) with a special color, for God's sake try to pick a color that contrasts well with the black background. I've had a hell of a time reading the text that some posters are trying to point out as the most important part of the post, but end up obscuring with poor color choices. That's what "preview" is for. You might want to use Bold or Italic instead of some silly color I've no idea what you mean.Simon
|
|
|
Post by wareagle on Oct 3, 2007 9:01:52 GMT -6
But Steve--we weren't arguing so panty-talk is fine by me! Panties, panties, panties now I feel better and I don't have ta try and slip something by Simon, which is almost impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 3, 2007 9:02:35 GMT -6
She did an ad homonem on you Bob ;D That's a lie, you sorry bastard. What kind of God-fearing person would say that? It's my way or the highway. I'll break your kneecaps (can't you help a poor Texan out?) if you don't straighten up your act. ;DTHAT DOES IT... I plan to miss my MoBay bus on November 18, watch your step getting off the bus bastard ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 3, 2007 9:03:20 GMT -6
8. If you feel the need to highlight part of your quoted text (or original text, for that matter) with a special color, for God's sake try to pick a color that contrasts well with the black background. I've had a hell of a time reading the text that some posters are trying to point out as the most important part of the post, but end up obscuring with poor color choices. That's what "preview" is for. You might want to use Bold or Italic instead of some silly color I've no idea what you mean.Simon what was that?
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 3, 2007 9:03:59 GMT -6
But Steve--we weren't arguing so panty-talk is fine by me! Panties, panties, panties now I feel better and I don't have ta try and slip something by Simon, which is almost impossible.Slips are entirely different than panties
|
|
|
Post by wareagle on Oct 3, 2007 9:05:31 GMT -6
Panties, panties, panties now I feel better and I don't have ta try and slip something by Simon, which is almost impossible. Slips are entirely different than panties I didn't know Simon wore slips.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 3, 2007 9:08:43 GMT -6
... but you knew he wore panties?
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 3, 2007 9:12:59 GMT -6
5. If you DON'T have any of your own thoughts, analyses, or opinions to add, why are you posting it in the first place? To pick up chicks.
|
|
|
Post by DT on Oct 3, 2007 9:14:07 GMT -6
I'd like to see good arguing techniques used rather than lame ones such as . . . Well there goes all my posts!! ;D uh huh, especially the ones that describe Hillary's cunt being big.
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 3, 2007 9:14:13 GMT -6
5. If you DON'T have any of your own thoughts, analyses, or opinions to add, why are you posting it in the first place? To pick up chicks. Is it working? Simon
|
|
|
Post by wareagle on Oct 3, 2007 9:15:05 GMT -6
... but you knew he wore panties? The last time I saw Simon was last April in Florida and he was hanging out around the womens luggage. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Although not many of the girls had panties with them, or on them. The great raid had already happened, damn he's fast.
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 3, 2007 9:16:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wareagle on Oct 3, 2007 9:17:11 GMT -6
Well there goes all my posts!! ;D uh huh, especially the ones that describe Hillary's cunt being big. I did hear a story about Bill losing his watch.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 3, 2007 9:21:49 GMT -6
... but you knew he wore panties? The last time I saw Simon was last April in Florida and he was hanging out around the womens luggage. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Although not many of the girls had panties with them, or on them. The great raid had already happened, damn he's fast. He probably had a sniffer dog out too.
|
|
|
Post by DT on Oct 3, 2007 9:24:30 GMT -6
uh huh, especially the ones that describe Hillary's cunt being big. I did hear a story about Bill losing his watch. Was it a Timex? pssst.... "It takes a licking but keeps on ticking"
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 3, 2007 9:26:19 GMT -6
uh huh, especially the ones that describe Hillary's cunt being big. I did hear a story about Bill losing his watch. And the rumour about him strapping a plank of wood across his arse to stop himself falling in? Simon
|
|
|
Post by wareagle on Oct 3, 2007 9:27:25 GMT -6
The last time I saw Simon was last April in Florida and he was hanging out around the womens luggage. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Although not many of the girls had panties with them, or on them. The great raid had already happened, damn he's fast. He probably had a sniffer dog out too. That would have been me. I love to scratch and sniff but I'm a threat to mount from behind.
|
|
|
Post by wareagle on Oct 3, 2007 9:32:03 GMT -6
I did hear a story about Bill losing his watch. Was it a Timex? pssst.... "It takes a licking but keeps on ticking" Just the image of Hillary with her legs spread has got me sitting here half laughing to myself.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Oct 3, 2007 23:14:19 GMT -6
I'd like to see good arguing techniques used rather than lame ones such as ad hominem attacks: attacking the opponent rather than the opponent's argument; name calling ad populum attacks: appealing to readers' general values such as patriotism or love of family false authority: citing as expert opinion the views of a person who is not a vetted expert non sequitor: drawing conclusions from irrelevant evidence post hoc fallacy: assuming that A caused B because A preceded B either/or fallacy: reducing a complicated question to two alternatives false analogy: exaggerating the similarities in an analogy or ignoring key differences sweeping generalizations: asserting an opinion as applying to all instances when it may only apply to some or to none (stereotypes included) appealing to reader's fear or pityjumping to conclusions: basing thoughts on too little information red herrings: introducing an irrevalant issue to distract readers Info derived from The Little, Brown Handbook by Aaron & Fowler, 9th ed. In a perfect world. Edited to add. Not being a smart ass Chris, just making a point. Joe
|
|