|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2008 : 12:52:17 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| As to SFW and NSFW, I certainly hope that in your lifetime this civilization can outgrow that kind of nonsense! |
I agree. I have never understood why anyone would be offended by human nudity. Sad fact of life though, many places will fire you for looking at boobies on company time/property!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 14:41:10 [Permalink]
|
| bngbuck, you misunderstand me. Most of the time when someone makes a kick-ass post, I can say to myself, "I bet the author is pretty proud of himself" because I'd be pretty proud of myself if I had written the hypothetical great post. Not so with your OP. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 10:44:51 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| bngbuck, you misunderstand me. |
Yeah, well that doesn't take much effort. You change hats so quickly, it is indeed difficult to separate fact from friction! | Most of the time when someone makes a kick-ass post, I can say to myself, "I bet the author is pretty proud of himself" because I'd be pretty proud of myself if I had written the hypothetical great post. Not so with your OP. |
Dave, is all this barely audible grousing on your part a muted statement of today's SFN official policy on the tone and content of member's postings, or is it your personal view as just another member of SFN?
I think it is important to clarify this distinction when you or Kil, and lesser luminaries like Dr. Mabuse, make value judgements on what your invited guests contribute to your private enterprise of web journalism here.
When I first came to SFN last August, I was positively astounded by the level of babble involving multiple four-letter word personal insult that was tolerated by the forum's moderators. The inanity of a professional troll like Jerome was of much more concern to management than the rampant recidivism to schoolyard squabbling that badly marred an otherwise excellent discourse board.
At the urging of myself and others, you guys did a damn good job of cleaning up the mud in the playground and I commend you again on that effort. But the train is on the tracks now, and it's unclear exactly where it's going. I gather that insult, regardless of the degree of sophistication, is not only unwelcome, but is subject to stern review and likely reprimand.
O.K., that's a tough one to parse, but I can understand the intent of concise, but nice, behind such an informal policy, and I can partially agree with it - especially considering the stated mission of SFN to "to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise", not a cockfighting pit or gladiator contest.
But then we come to forum content that does not involve personal confrontation or animosities, but rather items of questionable taste, legality, or, to use a particularly obtuse euphemism, "maturity".
In response to specific or implied questions regarding these areas of contention, Kil has pretty much said, in reference to objectional postings, "we know it when we see it". Unfortunately, when you see it, it is already too late, a culprit has been created, and various hard feelings develop.
Well, I for one, really don't know it when I see it, or post it for that matter. I understand that I am something of an antinomian, but there are others here that frequently express a high level of freethinking. I'm sure that several of the folks on these forums that I have, at different times, both angered and joined, would also appreciate a little clearer expression of what the producers of this mise-en-scène expect of their performers.
For example, I would appreciate a clear, specific and detailed criticism of the offensive, disagreeable, objectionable, stupid, ugly, inappropiate, or just plain "I wish you hadn't done that" aspects of this Turdblossom post I made a few days ago. I don't see a damn thing wrong with it, but that is not the point! The point, most emphatically is, do you feel that such subject matter or that my specific type of expression of it is unwelcome on your Forum? - and, if so, the specific, critically-thought-out reasons for that verdict?
I specifically would like you, Dave, also Kil and Mabuse to comment at length and in detail on any objections to or unhappiness with this Rove caricature piece that you may have - as appropriate for your forum. - not as the personal opinion of a participating reader and contributor. If there are none, well and good, I can feel free to respond to your personal opinion as I see fit. If there are such 'not right for these boards' reasons, I do not intend to argue with you, your exposition of such regulation will be considerable help to me and others in formulating future postings!
I certainly welcome comments from readers, but forum members are not forum owners and operators, and are not charged with the responsibilities attendant to such position. I am entirely comfortable responding to those that differ with, object to, or just don't like what I write. But I am here, as all others, at the invitation of the owners and management, and that entails an entirely different response pattern with significantly less freedom of expression.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 11:07:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave, is all this barely audible grousing on your part a muted statement of today's SFN official policy on the tone and content of member's postings, or is it your personal view as just another member of SFN? |
Had it been official, you probably would have seen the dreaded red text by now. Distinguishing official objections from personal ones shouldn't be too difficult.
Speaking of red text, "SFN" is properly bolded and blue. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by typing "[sfn]" (without the quotes, of course). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 13:46:05 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Tough territory, huh? Well, a cautious reply is better than no reply at all! Thanks for kind of answering my request.
Speaking of SFN, I was just being inflammatory! Appreciate the code, though! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 18:48:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
At the urging of myself and others, you guys did a damn good job of cleaning up the mud in the playground and I commend you again on that effort. But the train is on the tracks now, and it's unclear exactly where it's going. I gather that insult, regardless of the degree of sophistication, is not only unwelcome, but is subject to stern review and likely reprimand. |
We began the task of cleaning up the forums well before you arrived. It's been ongoing for some time now. But thanks!
Bill:
I specifically would like you, Dave, also Kil and Mabuse to comment at length and in detail on any objections to or unhappiness with this Rove caricature piece that you may have - as appropriate for your forum. - not as the personal opinion of a participating reader and contributor. |
Bill, I know you take considerable pleasure in being a ball-buster. Whatever... As Dave said, there was no red text. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 09:45:12 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
In response to my post on 4/14....| I specifically would like you, Dave, also Kil and Mabuse to comment at length and in detail on any objections to or unhappiness with this Rove caricature piece that you may have - as appropriate for your forum. - not as the personal opinion of a participating reader and contributor. |
....I have received statements from Kil and Dave. Would you care to respond to my request, or add anything to their comments? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 16:44:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave....
In a recent discussion with a literary agent, the question of copyright came up. I had spoken at some length of SFN and both my and others contributions to it, and my wish to incorporate some of the postings into one of the books that I am writing. She asked me what the copyright policy of SFN was, and I didn't know, although I have seen a few references to the subject from time to time.
Can you outline what the copyright position of SFN is with regard to the ownership of the copy posted here, and your policy as to granting verbatim use (with full credits) of such copy, either partial or entirety, in other (primarily print) publication? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 20:55:06 [Permalink]
|
| What you probably saw regarding copyright is the staff vigorously trying to avoid having the SFN infringe someone else's copyright(s). That's not what your agent was interested in. Give us some time to get back to you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 21:07:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Noted. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 09:57:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dr. Mabuse.....
In response to my post on 4/14....| I specifically would like you, Dave, also Kil and Mabuse to comment at length and in detail on any objections to or unhappiness with this Rove caricature piece that you may have - as appropriate for your forum. - not as the personal opinion of a participating reader and contributor. |
....I have received statements from Kil and Dave. Would you care to respond to my request, or add anything to their comments?
|
As a moderator, I do feel somewhat dismayed by the Opening Post. Not enough though to warrant an official moderator notice, but enough to make me want to comment on it.
As a moderator, my function is not just to police the forum for no-no posts, but also help keeping the community on the right path.
The SFN mission statement is at the bottom of every page. While the humour folder offers an opportunity to suspend disbelief for enjoyment, we should not have to suspend our intellectual capacity to have fun.
That's why I've chosen to encourage intelligent and smart humour, and discourage plump humour. Turd-humour could be funny if done intelligently, and in those cases turds are usually of secondary importance. Just doing turd, graphically at that, would appeal to four-year olds. Like I said before, that's not exactly the kind of readers SFN is aming for.
Humour is an art, and differnt people have different levels of skill in it. I'm far from as skilled as Halfmooner (you've might have noticed that I don't go out of my way posting much original humour myself), and I hardly qualifiy as a humour critic in more than general sense.
Your opening post got to stay (and didn't even recieve a moderator notice) for the reason that there might be someone besides you who find it funny, and because I didn't think it was violating the rules. I just think you should aim higher.
What others think doesn't really come in to it (other than what Dave, Kil, and @tomic, think in their capacity as ranking admin staff). However, the lack of praise of your supposed genious in this thread suggest I'm not the only one who think you should aim higher.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 10:42:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Can you outline what the copyright position of SFN is with regard to the ownership of the copy posted here, and your policy as to granting verbatim use (with full credits) of such copy, either partial or entirety, in other (primarily print) publication? |
The answer:
Your work is your own. You, quite obviously, grant us limited permission to publish whatever you post here in this limited form. If you can, elsewhere, turn a buck on your SFN postings, more power to ya.
Other members' (including staff's) work is their own. If you want to republish someone else's post(s), you'll have to ask them. The SFN cannot grant permission for copying on behalf of its members, current or past.
The same is true for SFN articles and private messages.
Permission from staff for copying posts will only be granted in cases in which the post(s) and context make management of SFN look like bastions of fairness and integrity.
That last sentence was, of course, a joke. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2008 : 12:20:31 [Permalink]
|
| Yep, some things are just plain ol' not funny. Now if you could find a picture of Rove actually holding a deuce, I might giggle. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2008 : 00:53:36 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
Just some commentary, no argumentation!
| we should not have to suspend our intellectual capacity to have fun. |
Well, it's difficult for me because of lack of intellectual capacity, if you can't prove a negative I guess you can't suspend a non-entity. However, I have fun although fully suspended! | I've chosen to discourage plump humour. Turd-humour could be funny if done intelligently, |
I assure you I will only offer skinny, Mensa-quality turds in future posts! | I'm far from as skilled as Halfmooner, and I hardly qualifiy as a humour critic. |
Yes.| Your opening post got to stay |
I am grateful. | What others think doesn't really come in to it (other than what Dave, Kil, and @tomic, think in their capacity as ranking admin staff). |
Several matters here:Dave thinks that I may not be able to see red, as opposed to simple black and white. Kil says "whatever". I didn't address @tomic as he doesn't post much and I didn't know if he was aware of, or interested in the thread. "What others think doesn't really come in to it" kind of implies that the democratic process is rather emasculated here at SFN!
I fully understand that this is a private enterprise and our delightful capitalist system decrees that he who owns the game, makes and enforces the rules. But that is not the point. There is a certain arrogance in "What others think doesn't really come into it" which at least implies that you don't care about any of the serf members' opinions here!
I don't think that's true! I kind of thought - from a reading of many of their posts - that Kil and even Dave felt that member readers opinions were of some value in determining SFN policy and even welcomed such opinion occasionally. I very well may be wrong! | I just think you should aim higher. |
Well, here's a high shooter, Mr. Fish is nationally syndicated by Cagle and he is a regular contribtor to the L.A. Weekly, MSNBC, Truthdig and Harper's Magazine - not exactly four year old children's publications! Just doing turd, graphically at that, would appeal to four-year olds. Like I said before, that's not exactly the kind of readers SFN is aming for.
|
Why not? You've got a five year old - me - producing copy! (OK, Doctor I know that's not really a joke, sorry!)
However, the lack of praise of your supposed genious in this thread suggest I'm not the only one who think you should aim higher.
|
Well, you are no doubt on to something! The accolades should come rolling in like they always do on practically every post that anybody makes on Humor, but they haven't! The only thing that's happened is that the thread has received 400 reads and 30 replies in five days. Now I know that's a lousy record for a Humor post - compared to the huge numbers that most of the other posts always roll up (Mooner's really do, but the guy is a consummate pro and his praise is richly deserved!) - and though everybody reading mine hates it, it's kind of like watching a scorpion - you hate the ugly thing, but it draws a crowd!
Who is it that supposes I am a genius? I'd like to meet them, just to quickly disabuse them of that notion!
I notice that the Religion posts that pull the big box office are generally dominated by christian cretins that most everybody here loves to hate. They get good response, but the readership is phenomenal! Lurkers love logomachy, which is exactly what most of the fights around here are about!
So, I may be nuts, but it doesn't appear to me that controversial stuff is necessarily bad for SFN as far as drawing readership! Is big readership a bad thing? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Turdblossom teaches the time-challenged!
Official Warning