Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hello Swansont;

 

This question has been bothering me for a while now, and I would have rather addressed it in a PM, but you stated that it should be addressed here--so here I am.

 

While posting in the Speculations forum, I gave what I thought to be some very good advice for philosophers, who post in a Science forum, as follows:

 

If you are going to spend time in science forums and have "different" ideas, then you need to know what you are dealing with. There are some very bright people in these forums, but most of them are already well ensconsed in their beliefs, so you have to work and have back-up to get them to listen to a new idea. The large majority of the membership is made up of "wannabe" scientists, and for some reason that I do not understand, these wannabe scientists think that philosophers "wannabe" scientists. (chuckle) So there is not a lot of respect for philosophers. What we have is a few good leaders and a lot of followers, which creates a kind of "pack" mentality.

If you were out in the woods and came upon a pack of wolves, what would you want to have? First, don't be carrying too much--just present one idea at a time. Second, you would want a weapon--make sure that the idea you present has some back-up that is acceptable. Third, you would want to do as much damage as possible to the first wolf that approached to discourage the others--so hit the first one hard and fast. Be intelligent, civil, informed, and have references at the ready, but nice and polite gets you nowhere.

 

You responded with the following:

 

Posted 23 October 2013 - 06:44 AM

Gees, on 20 Oct 2013 - 4:22 PM, said:

I managed to get 15 pages on the topic of the "supernatural" in this forum, which is no small feat, so I believe these tactics can work. It was difficult, but I learned some things, so it was worth it. This strategy won't make you popular, but you might be able to discuss your topic.

Moderator Note

It should also be noted that your tactics earned you warnings, and are not in keeping with the rules. Regardless of the popularity, the strategy will get you in trouble and, if one persists with them, suspended.

 

The problem is that I don't think that my tactics earned me warnings--my temper did. This was when I did not have any tactics to solve the problem, so I fell back on simple manners. Which just encouraged the problem, so I hit the report button. The moderator's "help" is what actually blew my temper. This happened twice, so now I don't touch the report button, and I don't get any more warnings. Simple.

 

But back to the point. I think that the advice that I gave is sound and necessary for any philosopher to know when working in a Science forum. I also do not think that what I advised is against the rules, but I could be wrong. So did you assume that my warnings were caused by the tactics, or is there some specific reason why you think that the above tactics are against the forum rules?

 

Thank you for your considerations.

 

G

 

Edit: I apologize for misspelling your name. I corrected it in the post but do not know how to correct it in the Title.

Edited by Gees
Posted

Since you bring it up, you were in fact officially warned because of a personal attack on another member, which happened after a public modnote asked you to stop. Them you had to be publicly warned again, and got another official warning. You seem to describe this approach as a successful tactic, and I disagree. It is a tactic that violates the rules, and I wanted anyone reading the thread to know that.

 

As for your excuse, I don't see how your personal attacks could have been precipitated by moderator action, since the initial occurrences of course happened before you were warned. Causality is not violated.

 

Further, I had no involvement in that thread — I'm not the one who warned you. So it is not simply my opinion that your approach violated the rules. And I doubt that any of the other mods would endorse your tactics, either.

Posted

I got warned once for answering a persons question with a metaphor that told the answer to his question...

I just checked, and, if you did, it wasn't accompanied by a warning point. You were probably hijacking the thread with the metaphor.

Posted (edited)

I got warned once for answering a persons question with a metaphor that told the answer to his question...

 

 

As the Man wakes to the Sun, so too does the Sun wake to the Man.

 

Metaphors can be thought provoking, but you are likely better off here sticking to more understandable communication.

Edited by Endy0816
Posted

Swansont;

 

Thank you for your prompt response. Please consider the following:

 

Since you bring it up, you were in fact officially warned because of a personal attack on another member, which happened after a public modnote asked you to stop. Them you had to be publicly warned again, and got another official warning. You seem to describe this approach as a successful tactic, and I disagree. It is a tactic that violates the rules, and I wanted anyone reading the thread to know that.

 

I did not at any time "describe this approach as a successful tactic". It was not successful. It was not a tactic. It was bad temper.

 

As for your excuse, I don't see how your personal attacks could have been precipitated by moderator action, since the initial occurrences of course happened before you were warned. Causality is not violated.

 

I was angry and made a personal attack; I recognized the problem and asked for moderator help; the help was like throwing oil on fire; then I was furious and got worse. This is not an excuse, it is what happened. Now if you want an excuse, one could say that I was PMSing, or that I was in a lot of pain at the time, or that I am half Irish, but the reality is, I was very angry. ***Not a tactic.***

 

Further, I had no involvement in that thread — I'm not the one who warned you. So it is not simply my opinion that your approach violated the rules. And I doubt that any of the other mods would endorse your tactics, either.

 

Because you did not address my above-mentioned tactics, I am going to consider that you did not find them to be specifically against the rules. But you did find them offensive. They were not meant to be offensive, but to be informational. I probably could have used a better term than "pack" mentality, like maybe "team player", but that would imply that a philosopher can join the "team", and this is not possible.

 

I know that there has been more than one thread in this forum made by a philosopher, who believes that they are not being treated fairly--I have read them. But I also seriously doubt that anyone is intentionally trying to abuse the philosophers. I believe that this difference is caused by the different way that scientists and philosophers think and work--because their work is so different. It was my intention to try to explain how a philosopher must present their ideas in order to get any help in a science forum. So if there are any philosophers reading this, please consider the following.

 

In elementary school, we are all taught how to do a science experiment. We must study whatever we are testing and ensure that the only variable is what we are testing for; otherwise, we are not testing anything. Science is about focus, control, details, and proof. It is an exacting and precise discipline, and can only accomplish it's goals by adhering to these rules. This is what makes science great.

 

Philosophy, on the other hand, deals mostly with unknowns. It would be a little absurd to try to focus on the details of an unknown. So philosophers observe, and use reason and logic to find commonalities or recurring patterns to try to put some parameters around something that is unknown. So our work is more expansive than focused.

 

So let us take a very simple example of an unknown problem. We will say that someone gave me a puzzle in a jar. I have no picture to help me, and hope that I have all of the pieces, and no extras. I take the pieces out and turn them all up and study them. It looks like a country scene, but there is little that I can discern, so I start to sort them by color. I have a fair amount of red that looks like flowers and maybe an old barn and some other pieces. So I take them to my local science forum and ask, "What do you think?"

 

Those very focused and precise people will state, "Not one of those pieces is evidence of anything. There is no correlation between the pieces except color, and you don't even know if they belong together." Then they will go on to explain how every piece is completely different from the others in various ways, and is proof of nothing. My topic will close. I will feel like an idiot.

 

So for my advice:

 

First, don't be carrying too much--just present one idea at a time.

 

 

Just take the puzzle pieces that look like a barn or shed. Hold the rest in reserve, and you may find that some of those detail oriented people can help you put the barn/shed together.

 

Then pull out some other pieces, and maybe someone will note that one piece looks like a pump and there are often pumps by a barn for watering and washing the animals.

 

Second, you would want a weapon--make sure that the idea you present has some back-up that is acceptable.

 

Just because you think that it looks like a barn, does not mean anyone else will. Have pictures of barns. Have blow-ups of your puzzle pieces that show the wood grain. Have some kind of evidence that backs up your thinking.

 

Third, you would want to do as much damage as possible to the first wolf that approached to discourage the others--so hit the first one hard and fast.

.

When the first person states that it does not look like a barn, whip out your evidence. Do not wait. If three different people agree that it does not look like a barn, your thread is dead. Once there is agreement, you are working against belief, so evidence becomes invalid and proof is now required. If you let it get to the point where people start demanding proof, you are finished. Science deals with proof; philosophy does not.

 

Be intelligent, civil, informed, and have references at the ready, but nice and polite gets you nowhere.

 

I actually had a person in my thread tell me that philosophy only knows what science has told them, so it is clear that respect for and understanding of philosophy is at a low point. If you let yourself be a doormat, someone is going to wipe their feet. Be civil, be informed, be intelligent, and have references, and you may get to learn something from these science guys.

 

G

Posted

Swansont;

 

Thank you for your prompt response. Please consider the following:

 

 

I did not at any time "describe this approach as a successful tactic". It was not successful. It was not a tactic. It was bad temper.

"nice and polite gets you nowhere" was your advice and "so I believe these tactics can work" is how you put it. I am having a hard time reconciling your claim that you were not offering this as a successful tactic with what you had previously posted, or for that matter, your earlier advice to be civil but not polite. They seem to contradict each other.

 

 

I was angry and made a personal attack; I recognized the problem and asked for moderator help; the help was like throwing oil on fire; then I was furious and got worse. This is not an excuse, it is what happened. Now if you want an excuse, one could say that I was PMSing, or that I was in a lot of pain at the time, or that I am half Irish, but the reality is, I was very angry. ***Not a tactic.***

 

 

Because you did not address my above-mentioned tactics, I am going to consider that you did not find them to be specifically against the rules. But you did find them offensive. They were not meant to be offensive, but to be informational. I probably could have used a better term than "pack" mentality, like maybe "team player", but that would imply that a philosopher can join the "team", and this is not possible.

Another moderator addressed your behavior. At that point, this issue is (temporarily) resolved, and there would have been no need for me, or any other moderator, to get involved. Silence on my part does not mean assent.

 

I'm not looking for an excuse, or even an explanation. My only point was that one should not look at your behavior in that thread as anything to be emulated.

 

Posted

Swansont;

 

I apologize for being so late with my response, but life seems to be moving faster than I am lately.

 

 

"nice and polite gets you nowhere" was your advice and "so I believe these tactics can work" is how you put it. I am having a hard time reconciling your claim that you were not offering this as a successful tactic with what you had previously posted, or for that matter, your earlier advice to be civil but not polite. They seem to contradict each other.

 

There is no contradiction. Being civil means drawing a line in the sand where you will do nothing to abuse the other party and will accept no abuse. Nice and polite demand much more. Being polite means holding the door open for someone else. Being nice means sometimes stepping back and letting another person's desires take precedence. In a forum where people commonly use the tactics of debate, holding the door open can get you locked outside, and stepping back can be seen as a retreat or withdrawal that encourages attack. If you don't believe this, I can show you examples from my own thread.

 

Regarding tactics, you and I both know that behaviors can be used as tactics, but that does not mean that all tactics are behaviors. Either you have not read the thread, Supernatural, or you were not looking for the tactics as they are obvious. When I first decided to try to write about the supernatural, I knew it would be difficult. This subject is surrounded by centuries of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, and religious belief; but even so, I think it is important to understand in order to fully understand consciousness. Normally it takes proof to change beliefs, and all I had was some evidence, so a serious strategy was required.

 

In the first paragraph of the OP I stated that I study the philosophical understanding of consciousness and use the supernatural to that end. A strategy--designed to set the parameters of the discussion.

 

I then compared people, who refuse to discuss this, with "screaming virgins". A tactic. -- This was a dare designed to get past the knee jerk response to the word, supernatural, and add some humor to dispell some of the tension associated with the supernatural.

 

In the second paragraph, I went into the history of the word, supernatural, and painted religion as the cause of the problem and science and philosophy as the heroes. (This was easy to do because it is the damned truth.) A strategy -- designed to let people know that this was not about religion and "God", but rather about a serious analyzing study of the supernatural.

 

Later I stated that "God" is arguably President of the Paranormal Club. A tactic -- designed to show that I have no allegiance to religion. Then I went on to explain why I thought that it was important to study the supernatural.

 

There were two more things that needed to be addressed almost immediately; acceptable evidence and rationalization. I introduced Dr. Ian Stevenson as his work on reincarnation has been peer reviewed, challenged, but not refuted, so it is acceptable as evidence. Then I took advantage of something that EdEarl said to introduce the concept that rationalization can not be used with an unknown. This was a necessary strategy because people will imagine whatever they like, rationalize it, then call it truth, so this needed to be addressed immediately before that nonsense started. Later I sent EdEarl a PM and explained my taking advantage of him, which was a tactic. He said he understood. We are still friends, which is good as I respect his mind and value his friendship.

 

The rest of my strategy was to debunk myths, demystify mystics, and explain anthropomorphism, while comparing acceptable phenomenon with supernatural phenomenon; such as, ESP and human bonding. Both are a connection of minds, but no one understands the mechanism for these connections even though they both work through emotion.

 

The tragedy of this farce is that I never got to explain anthropomorphism, and without an understanding of this concept, no one can understand how the supernatural actually works. But I lost control of my thread and never truly regained it. I tried to get the moderator to close it--no luck. I tried leaving it, and the other members used it to gossip, tell jokes, and generally abuse the topic, so I went back and tried to steer it back on topic.

 

On page 14 I finally learned a new tactic--ridicule. Ridicule is what people use in this forum to get rid of someone or close a topic, so I ridiculed the other members theories on consciousness, and mercifully, the topic finally closed.

 

Another moderator addressed your behavior. At that point, this issue is (temporarily) resolved, and there would have been no need for me, or any other moderator, to get involved. Silence on my part does not mean assent.

 

Silence on your part would mean that this thread would never have been started, so apparently this issue is not "(temporarily) resolved". I have another question. When do the warnings come off? Or do they ever?

 

I'm not looking for an excuse, or even an explanation. My only point was that one should not look at your behavior in that thread as anything to be emulated.

 

Your point is understood. It is also understood that you do not want an explanation.

 

G

Posted

Silence on your part would mean that this thread would never have been started, so apparently this issue is not "(temporarily) resolved". I have another question. When do the warnings come off? Or do they ever?

 

 

G

 

They are not removed unless staff issue a negative warning point, which has happened approximately once in the year or so since the new warning system was put in place. It used to be that 10 warning points granted an automatic ban, but that is no longer the case and now they are mostly there for staff to keep track of things and help us in making decisions about member suspensions, etc. Granted, your warning points were issued 3-4 months ago in July, but you haven't been particularly active since then and so there is no compelling reason to say that they should be reversed.

Posted

Either you have not read the thread, Supernatural, or you were not looking for the tactics as they are obvious.

 

I read the parts that led to your warnings, which were justified.

 

Silence on your part would mean that this thread would never have been started, so apparently this issue is not "(temporarily) resolved".

No, not true. That's not the silence to which we both referred — you inferred agreement from my silence in the "superstition" thread, and that's not the thread that I commented in.

 

Your argument is moot for a couple of reasons. It doesn't matter that you are differentiating your argument tactics from your posts that earned warnings, the issue is that you were advising others to emulate you, and they may not make the same distinction, nor will they necessarily split the same hairs between "civil" and "nice". That's the issue I was addressing. As a moderator and I'm not going to let a post go unchallenged that seems to advocate rule-breaking as a posting strategy.

Posted

 

They are not removed unless staff issue a negative warning point, which has happened approximately once in the year or so since the new warning system was put in place. It used to be that 10 warning points granted an automatic ban, but that is no longer the case and now they are mostly there for staff to keep track of things and help us in making decisions about member suspensions, etc. Granted, your warning points were issued 3-4 months ago in July, but you haven't been particularly active since then and so there is no compelling reason to say that they should be reversed.

 

Hypervalent_Iodine;

 

Thank you for answering my questions. I had hoped that there was a time limit on the warnings, but did not really anticipate it. As I suspected, the warnings will remain and have a "building" affect on my reputation so that any grey area will be colored by the warnings prompting more warnings. A spiraling effect.

 

The problem is that I have a tendency to write some very interesting and thought provoking threads. Most of the time moderators like my threads because they are rarely boring, generate new ideas, and a lot of lively discussion, but I have never written on the Supernatural before. (chuckle)

 

I do not post very much in the Science area because I am not a scientist, although I do read there. I try to avoid the religion forum because I always end up defending religion, even though I am not religious, so most of my posting is in philosophy and mostly in my own threads. You are correct in that I am not posting much because I can not start any threads unless I can find a way to trust moderation. I had hoped that this thread would lead to some trust, but it does not look like it.

 

So far, in this thread, I have taken the defensive position as I saw no purpose in finger-pointing, but it looks like I may have nothing to lose. I will have to do some research and consider my options.

 

G

  • 2 years later...
Posted

 

They are not removed unless staff issue a negative warning point, which has happened approximately once in the year or so since the new warning system was put in place. It used to be that 10 warning points granted an automatic ban, but that is no longer the case and now they are mostly there for staff to keep track of things and help us in making decisions about member suspensions, etc. Granted, your warning points were issued 3-4 months ago in July, but you haven't been particularly active since then and so there is no compelling reason to say that they should be reversed.

Is this the current policy on warning points?

Posted

Yes. It's done on a case by case basis. I see no reason that any of yours should be removed, if that's what you are trying to get at.

No I was just wondering what the current policy was. So it seems pretty discretionary. I might feel like I didn't deserve some of the points but it only gets worse if a person complains bitterly. Thanks.

Posted

We have previously discussed where those points were earned and why. It doesn't "get worse" if you complain, though it does get a little tiring having to repeat the same explanations. Yes, it is discretionary. Staff will discuss matters before acting on them and only do so if a consensus is reached. IMO, it works best this way. There is more allowance for tailored solutions to better solve issues with certain members.

 

My advice to you is to get over it, learn from it and move forward. It happens. There are some members here who have been on the cusp of being banned (some on numerous occasions) and are now some of what I would consider our most valued active members. It is entirely up to you what happens next.

Posted

You can edit notification settings via User CP. Basically, it went to your gmail bc that's how you've configured your profile here.

 

On another note, generally better to worry less about warning points and focus more on submitting thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, inherently awesome posts.

 

Sometimes, you'll cross the line. Sometimes, the line itself ebbs and flows. It happens. Worry not. Just don't be douchey, be open to ideas that conflict with preconceptions, and don't ignore the line or pretend it doesn't exist. Just be yourself and strive always to be better.

 

[/nickels_worth_of_free_advice]

Posted

I don't understand why you think you need a 'tactic' to participate in a discussion, Gees.

This is not a contest to be won or lost. It is an opportunity to present your ideas and learn from others' ideas.

You should feel at ease, like you would with friends or class-mates

 

These guys are not a 'pack of wolves', but people who devote their time to helping others sort out their thoughts.

You can bounce you ideas off them, and if they can, they'll steer you in the right direction. Hopefully, they'll learn something from you also, Gees.

 

That's what a discussion is.

Posted

The post by Gees was several years old. I was looking for the most recent policy on warning points and this thread seemed to be the most recent.


You can edit notification settings via User CP. Basically, it went to your gmail bc that's how you've configured your profile here.

On another note, generally better to worry less about warning points and focus more on submitting thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, inherently awesome posts.

Sometimes, you'll cross the line. Sometimes, the line itself ebbs and flows. It happens. Worry not. Just don't be douchey, be open to ideas that conflict with preconceptions, and don't ignore the line or pretend it doesn't exist. Just be yourself and strive always to be better.

[/nickels_worth_of_free_advice]

That was good advice. "focus more on submitting thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, inherently awesome posts" that sounds like Nirvana. Maybe when you are a left handed, Christian psychic trying to prove that life started on Mercury you are always going to have difficulty submitting thoughtful, intelligent, internally consistent, interesting, inherently awesome posts.

 

"Striving to be better" - you do get fatigued after a while. Your brain fades, it becomes overloaded, it needs time to recover, yet the forum can be rather demanding if you let it.

Posted

We have been giving out warning points that expire in some cases. It depends on the infraction and the person's history.

 

We have discussions about members that have gotten multiple warnings and there have been situations where we've decided that in-thread warnings aren't having any effect, so warning points should be issued. Once that happens, it's probably going to continue for further transgressions, since a modnote has proven to be insufficient.

Posted

IMO philosophy and science are not necessarily at odds. Scientists can be philosophers. For example, Wikipedia says, "Avram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, social critic, and political activist." Scientists study nature, physics is about natural processes and things. A scientist considers things like reincarnation to be beyond any possible explanation, except magic (something unknown). In other words, nothing in known space-time, neither energy, field nor particle can possibly facilitate reincarnation. On the other hand, we cannot disprove reincarnation. Some people believe science will eventually find the mechanism, some do not. Some disbelieve science because it doesn't fit their ideas of existence, and some believe such people are deluded. With such diverse opinions and strong willed people, tempers will heat sometimes. A big job on this forum is to moderate those emotions; it's often criticized. Yet, they do outstanding work without pay.

Posted

We have been giving out warning points that expire in some cases. It depends on the infraction and the person's history.

 

We have discussions about members that have gotten multiple warnings and there have been situations where we've decided that in-thread warnings aren't having any effect, so warning points should be issued. Once that happens, it's probably going to continue for further transgressions, since a modnote has proven to be insufficient.

Do the mod notes cross threads? In the thread about the stages of Sun development I saw one mod note, I PM'd the moderator with an explanation and got warning points without making any further posts in that thread, yet within that thread there had derogatory posts about me, and others had tried to hijack the thread (I feel it would have been hijacking if I had done the same in another thread).

 

I don't report incidents often for in general I have felt it a waste of time. I have noticed others post comments in their posts alerting moderators to issues, do these work?

Posted

Do the mod notes cross threads? In the thread about the stages of Sun development I saw one mod note, I PM'd the moderator with an explanation and got warning points without making any further posts in that thread, yet within that thread there had derogatory posts about me, and others had tried to hijack the thread (I feel it would have been hijacking if I had done the same in another thread).

 

I don't report incidents often for in general I have felt it a waste of time. I have noticed others post comments in their posts alerting moderators to issues, do these work?

If you don't report the post there is no guarantee a mod is going to look at it. We prefer that people not bring up discussion of moderation, e.g. posts where non-staff try and enforce rules, or one that says something along the lines of "I've reported this to the mods". We would much prefer that you leave it to us.

 

Identical-looking actions by two people will not both necessarily be violations; for example, asking a question in a thread could be fine if you're the thread starter, but asking the same question (but not directed at the OP) could possibly be a hijack if you aren't. If you often feel you didn't deserve a modnote, you might not be the best judge of whether someone else does.

Posted

Migl;

 

Your concerns expressed in the following post are valid, so please consider my response.

 

I don't understand why you think you need a 'tactic' to participate in a discussion, Gees.

This is not a contest to be won or lost. It is an opportunity to present your ideas and learn from others' ideas.

You should feel at ease, like you would with friends or class-mates

 

I don't need a tactic to participate in a discussion, but may need one to start a discussion. If you have read this thread, you know that this all started with my thread on the supernatural. The supernatural is an unknown, so it is the venue of philosophy, but it is not unfamiliar. Although we have no idea of what causes the supernatural, we have examples of it throughout recorded history.

 

Because we are familiar with the idea of the supernatural, a lot of thought has accumulated around this word, but those thoughts did not come from science or even philosophy. The thoughts came from assumptions and opinions generated by disbelief, superstition, mysticism, and religions. So in order to have an intelligent discussion on this subject, it was necessary to devise a strategy that would disassociate me from superstition, mysticism, and religions, before anyone had a chance for a knee-jerk reaction that would turn the discussion into a joke. This was the purpose of the strategies and tactics.

 

No it is not a contest, but there is an element of winning and losing. If you get to discuss a subject that interests you, then you win; if you don't, then you lose. Why would I wish to join a forum that does not allow discussion of topics that interest me? Hence the strategy.

 

These guys are not a 'pack of wolves', but people who devote their time to helping others sort out their thoughts.

You can bounce you ideas off them, and if they can, they'll steer you in the right direction. Hopefully, they'll learn something from you also, Gees.

That's what a discussion is.

 

You may not like the terms that I used, but the concept is valid. We are social animals and tend to group or pack around ideas, mostly ideas that are associated with emotion or self. If you study consciousness, or even psychology, you should know that the unconscious mind is the source of pack or group behaviour, and the unconscious mind is activated by emotion. So any thread that has an active association with emotion is going to be a problem (especially in a forum that uses a rep system) which includes any and all threads that touch on religion.

 

For example: I started a thread called, Ebola, Dinosaurs, and Deuteronomy, in the philosophy forum. About halfway down the first page someone brought up eating pork, which is the common layman's interpretation of the food limitations in the Old Testament. From that point on it became a debate about religion; I learned nothing, became irritated and got a few down votes, then quit the thread before my reputation was completely shredded. There was so much that I had not yet touched on with my ideas, that I never got to the heart of my concept.

 

I had made the monumental mistake of dismissing the problem of religion and not having a strategy in place to counter the attacks. Since the Old Testament was such a small part of my idea, I had not given it enough credit and simply let my thoughts flow while writing my OP. Foolish mistake. Both, the Supernatural thread and the Ebola thread, were sidetracked to religious debate. For a science forum, there seems to be a lot of members, who are interested in debating religion. I do not need or want anyone to help me "sort out" my thoughts about religion. Strategy is better, as it can be an avoidance.

 

Months later I picked up a National Geographic magazine that had an article on Ebola. It confirmed my suspicion that Scientific American was wrong, and the leading authority on Ebola also had questions that seemed to align well with my ideas. So I learned more from the magazine than I did from the thread.

 

I doubt that anyone in that thread, other than me, even understood what the thread was about. So how can someone "steer [me] in the right direction", if they have no idea of where I'm going?

 

My only real complaint about this forum is that they have no working philosophers in moderation.

 

Gee

Posted

I don't need a tactic to participate in a discussion, but may need one to start a discussion.

<snip>

 

I doubt that anyone in that thread, other than me, even understood what the thread was about. So how can someone "steer [me] in the right direction", if they have no idea of where I'm going?

 

My only real complaint about this forum is that they have no working philosophers in moderation.

1. The danger is that a poorly executed tactic can look like manipulation and appear dishonest.

 

2. Perhaps your tactics are removing clarity from your writing. If one or two people fail to understand it is likely their reading skills that are lacking. If everyone fails to understand we would suspect writing skills. Since this post is clear it suggests the incomprehension arises from your application of tactics.

 

3. Then it would probably make sense to stop complaining about other things.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.